Smith v. Walker - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

SMITH, APPELLANT, v. WALKER, WARDEN, APPELLEE.
[Cite as Smith v. Walker (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.]
Habeas corpus to compel Warden of Pickaway Correctional Institution to release
petitioner from prison -- Petition properly dismissed by court of appeals,
when.
(No. 98-1036 -- Submitted September 29, 1998 -- Decided October 28, 1998.)
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Pickaway County, No. 98 CA 10.

In 1994, the Summit County Court of Common Pleas convicted appellant,
Paul Douglas Smith, of endangering children and assault, and sentenced him to
prison. The judgment was affirmed on appeal. State v. Smith (July 5, 1995),
Summit App. No. 16910, unreported, 1995 WL 411401. The common pleas court
later denied Smith's petition for postconviction relief. Smith also filed a petition
in this court for a writ of habeas corpus, which we dismissed. Smith v. Walker
(1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 1503, 684 N.E.2d 88.

In 1998, Smith filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Pickaway County
for a writ of habeas corpus to compel appellee, Pickaway Correctional Institution
Warden Diane Walker, to immediately release him from prison. Smith claimed
that his trial court improperly sentenced him for a second-degree felony even
though the jury found him guilty of a third-degree felony. Shortly thereafter, the
court of appeals dismissed Smith's petition because he had failed to comply with
the requirements of R.C. 2969.25(A) and (C).

This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right.
__________________

Paul Douglas Smith, pro se.

Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Karen L. Killian, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.

__________________

Per Curiam. Smith asserts in his sole proposition of law that the court of
appeals erred in dismissing his petition based on the in forma pauperis
requirements set forth in R.C. 2969.25 for inmates filing civil actions against a
government entity or employee. Smith's assertion lacks merit because even if the
court of appeals' rationale was incorrect, dismissal was warranted for the
following reasons. See State ex rel. The V Cos. v. Marshall (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d
467, 474, 692 N.E.2d 198, 204, fn. 1.

First, Smith had adequate remedies at law by appeal or postconviction relief
to review the alleged sentencing error. State ex rel. Massie v. Rogers (1997), 77
Ohio St.3d 449, 450, 674 N.E.2d 1383. Sentencing errors are not jurisdictional.
Majoros v. Collins (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 442, 443, 596 N.E.2d 1038, 1039.
Second,
res judicata precluded Childers from filing successive habeas
corpus petitions. State ex rel. Brantley v. Ghee (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 287, 288,
685 N.E.2d 1243, 1244.

Based on the foregoing, the court of appeals properly dismissed Smith's
petition. By so holding, as we have held in comparable cases, we need not address
the issue of whether R.C. 2969.25 applies to habeas corpus actions. Cf. State ex
rel. Crigger v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 270, 271, 695
N.E.2d 254, 255; State ex rel. Alford v. Winters (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 285, 286,
685 N.E.2d 1242, 1242-1243. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of
appeals.
Judgment affirmed.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.

2