Legal Opinion

In re Brown for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Prosequendum

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 7, 1990No. 89-1396PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Per curiam

We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. Petitioner has no cause of action either by writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum or writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum. The former issues to bring a prisoner before a court to prosecute in a jurisdiction other than where he is imprisoned and has no application in this case. The latter issues to inquire into illegal restraint of liberty. Neither will issue simply to grant a new first appeal as of right.

This does not leave a person claiming denial of effective assistance of appellate counsel without an adequate remedy. The claim is based on…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. In re HuntOhio Supreme Court · 1976

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. State v. MurnahanOhio Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Paul R. Manning v. George AlexanderCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1990
  3. Fernando Lopez v. Julius Wilson, WardenCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2005
  4. Frederick White v. James Schotten, WardenCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2000
  5. Tucker v. CollinsOhio Supreme Court · 1992

15 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