Case Title: Roberts v. Knab

Citation: 2012-Ohio-56

Docket Number: 2011-1364

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2012-01-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Roberts v. Knab, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-56.] 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2012-OHIO-56 
ROBERTS, APPELLANT, v. KNAB, WARDEN, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Roberts v. Knab, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-56.] 
Habeas corpus—Sentencing error not cognizable in habeas corpus—Claim 
already raised in direct appeal—Res judicata bars second raising of 
claim—Judgment dismissing petition affirmed. 
(No. 2011-1364—Submitted January 3, 2012—Decided January 12, 2012.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Ross County, No. 11CA3235. 
__________________ 
 
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 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
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. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Michael Roberts, pro se. 
 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Gene D. Park, Assistant Attorney 
General, for appellee. 
______________________