Title: State ex rel. Shackleford v. Moore

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. Shackleford v. Moore, 116 Ohio St.3d 310, 2007-Ohio-6462.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. SHACKLEFORD, APPELLANT, v. MOORE,  
WARDEN, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Shackleford v. Moore,  
116 Ohio St.3d 310, 2007-Ohio-6462.] 
Habeas corpus—Adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law—Writ denied. 
(No. 2007-1360 ─ Submitted November 28, 2007 ─ Decided  
December 12, 2007.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Warren County, 
No. CA2007-05-059. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing a petition for a writ 
of habeas corpus.  Because the appellant had an adequate remedy in the ordinary 
course of law to raise his claim, we affirm. 
{¶ 2} In 2000, the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas 
convicted appellant, Phillip G. Shackleford, of two counts of rape and 
accompanying firearm specifications and sentenced him to an aggregate prison 
term of 23 years.  On appeal, the court of appeals affirmed.  State v. Shackleford 
(May 4, 2001), Montgomery App. No. 18297, 2001 WL 468415.  We did not 
accept Shackelford’s further appeal for review.  State v. Shackleford, 95 Ohio 
St.3d 1460, 2002-Ohio-2230, 767 N.E.2d 1178. 
{¶ 3} In May 2007, Shackleford filed a petition in the Warren County 
Court of Appeals for a writ of habeas corpus to compel appellee, Lebanon 
Correctional Institution Warden Ernie Moore, to release him from prison.  
Shackleford claimed that the trial court improperly enhanced his sentence, relying 
on State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856, 845 N.E.2d 470; Blakely v. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Washington (2004), 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403; and 
Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000), 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435, 
among other cases.  Moore filed a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss 
Shackleford’s petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be 
granted.  The court of appeals granted the motion and dismissed the petition. 
{¶ 4} In his appeal as of right, Shackleford contends that the court of 
appeals erred in dismissing his petition.  For the following reasons, Shackleford’s 
contention lacks merit. 
{¶ 5} First, “ ‘[w]e have consistently held that sentencing errors are not 
jurisdictional and 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, quoting 
Majoros v. Collins (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 442, 443, 596 N.E.2d 1038. Shackleford 
“has or had adequate remedies in the ordinary course of law, e.g., appeal and 
postconviction relief, for review of any alleged sentencing error.”  State ex rel. 
Jaffal v. Calabrese, 105 Ohio St.3d 440, 2005-Ohio-2591, 828 N.E.2d 107, ¶ 5. 
{¶ 6} Second, in Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856, 845 N.E.2d 
470, at ¶ 104, we limited the application of our holding — that certain sentencing 
statutes were unconstitutional because they required judicial fact-finding before 
imposition of a more severe sentence — to cases pending on direct review.  In 
those cases in which Foster applied, we ordered new sentencing hearings rather 
than release from prison.  We also did not hold that extraordinary relief in habeas 
corpus is available to rectify sentencing errors.  See also Wells v. Bradshaw, 
Richland App. No. 06CA35, 2006-Ohio-4636, ¶ 14-16 (Foster does not support 
habeas corpus claim).  The decisions Shackleford relies on do not apply 
retroactively to cases that are already final on direct review.  See generally In re 
Dean (C.A.11, 2004), 375 F.3d 1287, 1290; Humphress v. United States (C.A.6, 
2005), 398 F.3d 855; State v. Robinson, Franklin App. No. 06AP-368, 2006-Ohio-
January Term, 2007 
3 
6649, ¶ 9 (“Blakely does not recognize a new federal or state right that applies 
retroactively”). 
{¶ 7} Finally, the fact that Shackleford has already unsuccessfully 
pursued a direct appeal of his sentence does not entitle him to the requested 
extraordinary relief.  Sneed, 114 Ohio St.3d 11, 2007-Ohio-2454, 866 N.E.2d 
1084, at ¶ 9, citing Russell v. Mitchell (1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 328, 703 N.E.2d 
1249. 
{¶ 8} Based on the foregoing, the court of appeals properly dismissed 
Shackleford’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.  Therefore, we affirm the 
judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Phillip G. Shackleford, pro se. 
 
Marc Dann, Attorney General, and Diane Mallory, Assistant Attorney 
General, for appellee. 
______________________