Case Title: Shie v. Smith

Citation: 2009-Ohio-4079

Docket Number: 20090704

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2009-08-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Shie v. Smith, 123 Ohio St.3d 89, 2009-Ohio-4079.] 
 
 
 
SHIE, APPELLANT, v. SMITH, WARDEN, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as Shie v. Smith, 123 Ohio St.3d 89, 2009-Ohio-4079.] 
Appeal from dismissal of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus — Habeas corpus 
not available to remedy claim concerning sentencing error — Judgment 
affirmed. 
(No. 2009-0704 — Submitted August 11, 2009 — Decided August 19, 2009.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Richland County, No. 09 CA 21, 
2009-Ohio-1661. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the 
petition of appellant, David Zion Shie, for a writ of habeas corpus. 
{¶ 2} Shie’s claim of sentencing error is not cognizable in habeas corpus, 
and he had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law by direct appeal to 
raise that issue.  State ex rel. Shackleford v. Moore, 116 Ohio St.3d 310, 2007-
Ohio-6462, 878 N.E.2d 1035, ¶ 5.  In fact, Shie already unsuccessfully raised the 
same issue in his direct appeal, see State v. Shie, Cuyahoga App. No. 88677, 
2007-Ohio-3773, appeal not accepted for review, 116 Ohio St.3d 1440, 2007-
Ohio-6518, 877 N.E.2d 991, and res judicata bars him from using habeas corpus 
to obtain a successive appellate review.  State ex rel. Mowen v. Mowen, 119 Ohio 
St.3d 462, 2008-Ohio-4759, 895 N.E.2d 163, ¶ 17. 
{¶ 3} Moreover, because habeas corpus is appropriate in the criminal 
context only when the petitioner is entitled to immediate release from prison or 
some other physical confinement, Shie is not entitled to the writ because he is also 
incarcerated for a parole revocation on a prior offense that he does not challenge.  
Keith v. Bobby, 117 Ohio St.3d 470, 2008-Ohio-1443, 884 N.E.2d 1067, ¶ 12-13. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 4} Finally, Shie’s petition is fatally defective and subject to dismissal 
because he did not attach copies of all of his pertinent commitment papers.  
Knowles v. Voorhies, 121 Ohio St.3d 271, 2009-Ohio-1109, 903 N.E.2d 637, ¶ 1. 
{¶ 5} Therefore, the court of appeals properly dismissed Shie’s habeas 
corpus petition.  We also deny Shie’s motion for oral argument. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
David Zion Shie, pro se. 
 
Richard Cordray, Attorney General, and Samuel Peterson, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
______________________