STATE NORRIS v. BOGGINS (1997)

Supreme Court of Ohio.

[The STATE ex rel.] NORRIS, Appellant, v. BOGGINS, Judge, Appellee.

No. 97-223.

Decided: November 19, 1997

Robert Lee Norris, pro se.

Per Curiam. Norris asserts that the court of appeals erred by denying the writ. Norris's claim, however, is meritless for the following reasons.

First, habeas corpus, rather than mandamus, is the appropriate action for persons claiming entitlement to immediate release from prison. State ex rel. Lemmon v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 186, 188, 677 N.E.2d 347, 349. Second, Norris has or had adequate legal remedies by an appeal or petition for postconviction relief to challenge any sentencing error. State ex rel. Massie v. Rogers (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 449, 450, 674 N.E.2d 1383, 1383.

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

Judgment affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

MOYER, C.J., and 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Out of date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