Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Harris v. Anderson

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 31, 1996No. 96-410PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMoyer, C.J.

Harris asserts in his sole proposition of law that the sentencing court did not have jurisdiction over him because he was less than eighteen years old at the time the offenses were committed, and there was no bindover from a juvenile court.

Habeas corpus will lie in certain extraordinary circumstances where there is an unlawful restraint of a person’s liberty, and there is no adequate legal remedy, e.g., appeal or postconviction relief. State ex rel. Pirman v. Money (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 591, 593, 635 N.E.2d 26, 29.

At the time Harris was charged, convicted, and sentenced, R.C. 2151.26 provided:

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State v. WilsonOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  2. State ex rel. Pirman v. MoneyOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  3. Gaskins v. ShiplevyOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  4. Hammond v. DallmanOhio Supreme Court · 1992

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Smith v. May (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2020
  2. State ex rel. Fryerson v. TateOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  3. State ex rel. Bradford v. Bowen (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2022
  4. Miner v. Eberlin, 08-Be-21 (2-26-2009)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2009
  5. Johnson v. SloanOhio Court of Appeals · 2016

14 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