Case Title: Daggett v. Bradshaw

Citation: 2013-Ohio-4765

Docket Number: 2013-0562

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2013-11-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Daggett v. Bradshaw, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-4765.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2013-OHIO-4765 
DAGGETT, APPELLANT, v. BRADSHAW, WARDEN, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Daggett v. Bradshaw, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-4765.] 
Habeas corpus—Adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law exists for raising 
a claim of sentencing error—Court of appeals’ dismissal of petition 
affirmed. 
(No. 2013-0562—Submitted October 9, 2013—Decided November 6, 2013.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Richland County, No. 12CA99, 
2013-Ohio-713. 
____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals granting the motion 
to dismiss of appellee, Margaret Bradshaw, warden of the Richland Correctional 
Institution, and dismissing the petition of appellant, Leotis M. Daggett, for a writ 
of habeas corpus.  On June 15, 2011, as part of a negotiated agreement, Daggett 
pled guilty to a charge of robbery and was sentenced to six years in prison.  The 
sentencing entry stated that the robbery was a felony of the fourth degree.  The 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
sentencing court issued two nunc pro tunc orders to correct an error in the original 
entry.  The first again said that the charge was a felony of the fourth degree; the 
second, issued on July 8, 2011, corrected the entry to reflect that the charge was a 
second-degree felony. 
{¶ 2} Daggett argues that the sentencing court lacked authority to issue 
the nunc pro tunc entries and that he has already served the maximum sentence 
for a fourth-degree felony. 
{¶ 3} Daggett’s claims are not cognizable in habeas corpus, because he 
had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law by way of appeal, and in 
general, sentencing orders are not cognizable in habeas corpus.  State ex rel. 
Sneed v. Anderson, 114 Ohio St.3d 11, 2007-Ohio-2454, 866 N.E.2d 1084, ¶ 7. 
{¶ 4} Moreover, a nunc pro tunc order correcting a clerical error in a 
sentencing entry violates neither Crim.R. 32(C) nor State v. Baker, 119 Ohio 
St.3d 197, 2008-Ohio-3330, 893 N.E.2d 163.  State ex rel. Womack v. Marsh, 128 
Ohio St.3d 303, 2011-Ohio-229, 943 N.E.2d 1010, ¶ 15; State v. Lester, 130 Ohio 
St.3d 303, 2011-Ohio-5204, 958 N.E.2d 142, ¶ 17-20. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
____________________ 
 
Leotis M. Daggett, pro se. 
 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Thelma Thomas Price, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
________________________