STATE BRUGGEMAN v. LEONARD (1999)

Supreme Court of Ohio.

The STATE ex rel. BRUGGEMAN, Appellant, v. LEONARD, Warden, Appellee.

No. 99-456.

Decided: September 01, 1999

Christopher Bruggeman, pro se. Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Laurence R. Snyder, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Per Curiam. Bruggeman asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his petition and assessing costs against him. For the following reasons, Bruggeman's contentions lack merit.

Habeas corpus will not issue to raise claims of insufficiency of evidence or erroneous jury instructions. See, e.g., Cornell v. Schotten (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 466, 467, 633 N.E.2d 1111, 1112; State ex rel. Beaver v. Konteh (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 519, 521, 700 N.E.2d 1256, 1258.

Further, the court of appeals did not err in assessing costs against Bruggeman. Contrary to his contentions, he was not the prevailing party in his habeas corpus case, and the court of appeals could have properly determined that, based on the account statement submitted by the prison cashier, he had sufficient funds to make periodic partial payments of the assessed costs.

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, FRANCIS E. SWEENEY, Sr., PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network