Legal Opinion

Wenzel v. Enright

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 22, 1993No. 92-2115PublishedCited by 33 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDouglas, J.

Appellant suggests that habeas corpus is a proper remedy for an accused seeking pretrial appellate review of a trial court’s decision denying a motion to dismiss on the ground of double jeopardy. We disagree. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

In Owens v. Campbell (1971), 27 Ohio St.2d 264, 56 O.O.2d 158, 272 N.E.2d 116, this court held, in the syllabus, that:

“The extraordinary original jurisdiction granted to an Ohio appellate court may be invoked to adjudicate the right of an accused to the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Ashe v. SwensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  2. Abney v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  3. State v. ThomasOhio Supreme Court · 1980
  4. State v. CragoOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  5. State ex rel. Owens v. CampbellOhio Supreme Court · 1971

3Cited by33 opinions

  1. Phillips v. Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton CountyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2012
  2. State ex rel. White v. JunkinOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  3. State ex rel. Keenan v. CalabreseOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  4. Klein v. LeisCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2008
  5. Howard v. Catholic Social Services of Cuyahoga County, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1994

28 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