Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Dozier v. Mack

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 28, 1999No. 98-2491PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Per curiam

Dozier asserts in his sole proposition of law that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his habeas corpus petition. For the following reasons, the court of appeals correctly dismissed the petition.

First, any defect by the alleged failure to file criminal complaints is not cognizable in habeas corpus because Dozier was convicted and sentenced upon indictments rather than complaints. Thornton v. Russell (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 93, 94, 694 N.E.2d 464, 465, citing State v. Wac (1981), 68 Ohio St.2d 84, 87, 22 O.O.3d 299, 301, 428 N.E.2d 428, 431, fn. 2.

Second, Dozier did not attach copies of…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State v. WacOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  2. McBroom v. RussellOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  3. Thornton v. RussellOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  4. Smith v. MitchellOhio Supreme Court · 1998

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Hairston v. SeidnerOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  2. State ex rel. Jackson v. BriganoOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  3. Taylor v. MitchellOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  4. Hairston v. SeidnerOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  5. State ex rel. Davis v. SloanOhio Court of Appeals · 2018

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API