Case Title: Smith v. Smith

Citation: 2009-Ohio-4691

Docket Number: 20090904

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2009-09-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Smith v. Smith, 123 Ohio St.3d 145, 2009-Ohio-4691.] 
 
 
SMITH, APPELLANT, v. SMITH, WARDEN, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as Smith v. Smith, 123 Ohio St.3d 145, 2009-Ohio-4691.] 
Habeas corpus — Claims that verdict forms did not list essential elements of 
offense and that jury failed to specify amount of drugs are not cognizable 
in habeas corpus — Adequate remedy exists for raising claim of 
sentencing error — Appellate judgment dismissing petition affirmed. 
(No. 2009-0904 ─ Submitted September 2, 2009 ─ Decided September 15, 2009.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Richland County, 
No. 09-CA-12, 2009-Ohio-1857. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the 
petition of appellant, Tony D. Smith, for a writ of habeas corpus, for the reasons 
stated in its opinion.  Smith’s claim that the jury-verdict forms did not list the 
essential elements of his criminal offense is not cognizable in habeas corpus.  
Wells v. Hudson, 113 Ohio St.3d 308, 2007-Ohio-1955, 865 N.E.2d 46, ¶ 8.  Nor 
is Smith’s claim alleging that the jury failed to specify the amount of drugs 
involved or the degree of the offense cognizable in habeas corpus.  See State ex 
rel. Wynn v. Baker (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 464, 465, 575 N.E.2d 208.  Finally, 
Smith had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law by appeal to raise his 
claim of sentencing error.  State ex rel. Hughley v. McMonagle, 121 Ohio St.3d 
536, 2009-Ohio-1703, 905 N.E.2d 1220, ¶ 1. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
 
Tony D. Smith, pro se. 
 
Richard Cordray, Attorney General, and Elizabeth A. Matune, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
__________________