Legal Opinion

McBroom v. Russell

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided November 6, 1996No. 96-870PublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Per curiam

In his sole proposition of law, McBroom asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his habeas corpus petition. In order to withstand dismissal, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus must conform to R.C. 2725.04 and state with particularity the extraordinary circumstances entitling the petitioner to the writ. See, generally, State ex rel. Jackson v. McFaul (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 185, 187, 652 N.E.2d 746, 748.

As the court of appeals correctly held, McBroom merely challenged the sufficiency of the indictment, which is not cognizable in habeas corpus. Luna v. Russell (1994), 70 Ohio…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Bloss v. RogersOhio Supreme Court · 1992
  2. State ex rel. Jackson v. McFaulOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Brown v. RogersOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  4. Luna v. RussellOhio Supreme Court · 1994

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Lemmon v. Ohio Adult Parole AuthorityOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  2. State ex rel. Johnson v. Ohio Parole BoardOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  3. Holloway v. Clermont County Department of Human ServicesOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  4. Shie v. LeonardOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  5. State ex rel. Lemmon v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.Ohio Supreme Court · 1997

22 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