v. (2012)

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition of appellant, Michael Roberts, for a writ of habeas corpus. Roberts's claim of sentencing error is not cognizable in habeas corpus, and he had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law to raise the issue. Turner v. Brunsman, 123 Ohio St.3d 445, 2009–Ohio–5588, 917 N.E.2d 269. Roberts has already unsuccessfully raised his claim that the trial court erred in sentencing him without ordering a presentence-investigation report in a motion to vacate his sentence and in an appeal from the court's denial of his motion. See State v. Roberts, Franklin App. No. 10AP–223, 2010–Ohio–4324. Res judicata bars him from using habeas corpus to obtain a successive appellate review. Shie v. Smith, 123 Ohio St.3d 89, 2009–Ohio–4079, 914 N.E.2d 369, ¶ 2. We further deny Roberts's motions for correction or modification of the record and to take judicial notice.

Judgment affirmed.

PER CURIAM.