Legal Opinion

Orr v. Mack

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided October 28, 1998No. 98-859PublishedCited by 37 opinions

1Per curiam

Orr asserts that the court of appeals erred by dismissing his habeas corpus petition. For the following reasons, however, Orr’s assertion lacks merit.

First, as the court of appeals held, habeas corpus is not available to attack the validity or sufficiency of the charging instrument. State ex rel. Beaucamp v. Lazaroff (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 237, 238, 673 N.E.2d 1273, 1274. The manner by which an accused is charged with a crime is procedural rather than jurisdictional, and after a conviction for crimes charged in an indictment, the judgment binds the defendant for the crime for which he was…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Beaucamp v. LazaroffOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  2. State ex rel. Simpson v. LazaroffOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  3. State ex rel. Ranzy v. CoyleOhio Supreme Court · 1998

3Cited by37 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Nelson v. GriffinOhio Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Rammage v. SarosOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  3. Rammage v. SarosOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  4. State ex rel. Bennett v. WhiteOhio Supreme Court · 2001
  5. Taylor v. MitchellOhio Supreme Court · 2000

32 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