Title: State ex rel. Dotson v. Rogers

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO                               
     The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of                      
Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27,                      
1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice                   
Thomas J. Moyer.                                                                 
     Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's                   
Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio.  Attention:  Walter S.                      
Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Whitten, Administrative                         
Assistant.  Tel.:  (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010.                       
Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome.                            
     NOTE:  Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the                  
full texts of the opinions after they have been released                         
electronically to the public.  The reader is therefore advised                   
to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West                       
Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.                     
The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume                    
and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound                   
volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.                                            
                                                                                 
The State ex rel. Dotson, Appellant, v. Rogers, Warden,                          
Appellee.                                                                        
     [Cite as State ex rel. Dotson v. Rogers (1993),                             
           Ohio St.3d     .]                                                     
Habeas corpus not available to review irregularities of                          
     nonjurisdictional nature.                                                   
     (No. 92-1603 -- Submitted January 19, 1993 -- Decided                       
February 24, 1993.)                                                              
     Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Allen County, No.                      
1-92-49.                                                                         
     Appellant, Emory B. Dotson, filed a petition for a writ of                  
habeas corpus in the Court of Appeals for Allen County,                          
claiming he was convicted of unspecified criminal charges and                    
sentenced to a term of eleven to forty years' imprisonment in                    
violation of his constitutional rights to a speedy trial and                     
the effective assistance of counsel.  The court of appeals held                  
that both claims were nonjurisdictional and therefore not                        
cognizable in habeas corpus, and dismissed the petition.                         
     The cause is before the court upon an appeal as of right.                   
                                                                                 
     Emory B. Dotson, pro se.                                                    
                                                                                 
     Per Curiam.  We affirm the decision of the court of                         
appeals.                                                                         
     In Mack v. Maxwell (1963), 174 Ohio St. 275, 22 O.O. 2d                     
335, 189 N.E.2d 156, we held that a claimed denial of the                        
constitutional right of a speedy trial could not be brought in                   
habeas corpus after the accused had pled guilty to or been                       
convicted of the crime charged.  In McConnaughy v. Alvis                         
(1956), 165 Ohio St. 102, 59 O.O. 103, 133 N.E. 2d 133, we held                  
that ineffective assistance of trial counsel is a                                
nonjurisdictional claim that must be raised by appeal.                           
Therefore, the court of appeals correctly dismissed the                          
petition in this case, and its judgment is affirmed.                             
                                    Judgment affirmed.                           
     Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright,  Resnick, F.E.                  
Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.