Case Title: Casey v. Hudson

Citation: 2007-Ohio-1257

Docket Number: 20061970

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2007-04-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Casey v. Hudson, 113 Ohio St.3d 166, 2007-Ohio-1257.] 
 
 
CASEY, APPELLANT, v. HUDSON, WARDEN, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as Casey v. Hudson, 113 Ohio St.3d 166, 2007-Ohio-1257.] 
Criminal law — Claims of denial of right to counsel not cognizable in habeas 
corpus. 
(No. 2006-1970 ─ Submitted February 28, 2007 ─ Decided April 4, 2007.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Richland County, 
No. 06-CA-76. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing a habeas corpus 
petition.  We affirm. 
{¶ 2} In 2002, the Stark County Court of Common Pleas convicted 
appellant, Thomas E. Casey, of three counts of rape and sentenced him to an 
aggregate term of life in prison.  In 2006, Casey filed a petition in the court of 
appeals for a writ of habeas corpus to compel his release from prison.  Casey 
claimed that he was denied his right to counsel at the trial court hearing at which 
he pleaded guilty to the charged offenses and was sentenced.  The sentencing 
entry indicates, however, that his counsel was present at the hearing.  The court of 
appeals dismissed the petition. 
{¶ 3} The court of appeals correctly dismissed the petition.  “Claims 
involving the ineffective assistance of counsel or the alleged denial of the right to 
counsel are not cognizable in habeas corpus.”  Bozsik v. Hudson, 110 Ohio St.3d 
245, 2006-Ohio-4356, 852 N.E.2d 1200, ¶ 7.  Casey had an adequate remedy for 
the claimed deprivation of his right to counsel by way of appeal or postconviction 
relief.  Tucker v. Collins (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 77, 78, 591 N.E.2d 1241.  Casey’s 
reliance on federal cases indicating a right to raise this claim in federal habeas 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
corpus cases does not warrant a different result, because “the state writ of habeas 
corpus is not coextensive with the federal writ.”  State ex rel. Smirnoff v. Greene 
(1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 165, 168, 702 N.E.2d 423. 
{¶ 4} Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Thomas E. Casey, pro se. 
 
Marc Dann, Attorney General, and Diane Mallory, Assistant Attorney 
General, for appellee. 
______________________