MITCHELL v. SMITH (2008)

Supreme Court of Ohio.

MITCHELL, Appellant, v. SMITH, Warden, Appellee.

No. 2008-1521.

Decided: December 02, 2008

Ervin L. Mitchell, pro se. Nancy Hardin Rogers, Attorney General, and William H. Lamb, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition of appellant, Ervin L. Mitchell, for a writ of habeas corpus because a claimed violation of Crim.R. 32(C) does not entitle an inmate to immediate release from prison. Instead, if a violation is established, “the appropriate remedy is resentencing instead of outright release.” McAllister v. Smith, 119 Ohio St.3d 163, 2008-Ohio-3881, 892 N.E.2d 914, ¶ 9.¹

Judgment affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1. We deny Mitchell's motion for oral argument.

PER CURIAM.

MOYER, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O'CONNOR, O'DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, 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Out of date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