Douglas v. Money
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
Douglas asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his habeas corpus petition. For the following reasons, Douglas’s assertion lacks merit.
First, application of the challenged statutes, rules, and guidelines to Douglas does not constitute ex post facto imposition of punishment. State ex rel. Henderson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 267, 268, 690 N.E.2d 887, 888; State ex rel. Crigger v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 270, 272, 695 N.E.2d 254, 256.
Second, state prisoners challenging the conditions of their confinement have an adequate legal…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- State ex rel. Carter v. SchottenOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- State ex rel. Tran v. McGrathOhio Supreme Court · 1997
- State ex rel. Smirnoff v. GreeneOhio Supreme Court · 1998
- State ex rel. Crigger v. Ohio Adult Parole AuthorityOhio Supreme Court · 1998
- State ex rel. Henderson v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & CorrectionOhio Supreme Court · 1998
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by36 opinions
- State v. BushOhio Supreme Court · 2002
- State v. BushOhio Supreme Court · 2002
- State ex rel. Bealler v. Ohio Adult Parole AuthorityOhio Supreme Court · 2001
- State ex rel. Bragg v. SeidnerOhio Supreme Court · 2001
- Larsen v. StateOhio Supreme Court · 2001
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.