84 OHIOST3D 266 - Thomas v. Huffman

How this case has been cited

26 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Per Curiam.

¶1Thomas asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his habeas corpus petition.

¶2Thomas’s contention lacks merit because his claims are not cognizable in habeas corpus. See, e.g., Gaskins v. Shiplevy (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 149, 150, 656 N.E.2d 1282, 1283 (double jeopardy); Cornell v. Schotten (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 466, 467, 633 N.E.2d 1111, 1112 (ineffective assistance of counsel); In re Copley (1972), 29 Ohio St.2d 35, 58 O.O.2d 98, 278 N.E.2d 358 (equal protection); Mattox v. Sacks (1961), 172 Ohio St. 385, 16 O.O.2d 243, 176 N.E.2d 221 (improper remarks made' by prosecuting attorney). Thomas had adequate legal remedies by an appeal or postconviction relief to raise his claimed errors. See State ex rel. Massie v. Rogers (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 449, 450, 674 N.E.2d 1383, 1383.

¶3Based on the foregoing, the court of appeals properly dismissed the habeas corpus petition. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

¶4Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.