Title: State ex rel. Tucker 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. Tucker, Appellant, v. Rogers, Warden,                          
Appellee.                                                                        
     [Cite as State ex rel. Tucker v. Rogers (1993),                             
           Ohio St.3d     .]                                                     
Habeas corpus not available when adequate remedy at law                          
     exists -- Order revoking probation and imposing sentence                    
     is a final, appealable order from which an appeal is                        
     routinely taken.                                                            
     (No. 92-1710 -- Submitted January 19, 1993 -- Decided                       
February 24, 1993.)                                                              
     Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Allen County, No.                      
1-92-59.                                                                         
     Appellant, Hubert Tucker, Sr., filed a petition for a writ                  
of habeas corpus in the Court of Appeals for Allen County,                       
claiming that his probation was revoked without due process of                   
law as guaranteed in Gagnon v. Scarpelli (1973), 411 U.S. 778,                   
93 S.Ct. 1756, 36 L.Ed.2d 656.  The court of appeals dismissed                   
the petition, holding that appellant had an adequate remedy at                   
law through appeal.                                                              
                                                                                 
     Hubert Tucker, Sr., pro se.                                                 
                                                                                 
     Per Curiam.  We affirm the decision of the court of                         
appeals.  In In re Hunt (1976), 46 Ohio St.2d 378, 75 O.O.2d                     
450, 348 N.E.2d 727, paragraph two of the syllabus, we held                      
that "[a] writ of habeas corpus will ordinarily be denied where                  
there is an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law."  An                  
order revoking probation and imposing sentence is a final,                       
appealable order from which an appeal is routinely taken.  See,                  
e.g., State v. McMullen (1983), 6 Ohio St. 3d 244, 6 OBR 312,                    
452 N.E.2d 1292; State v. Walden (1988), 54 Ohio App.3d 160,                     
561 N.E.2d 995.                                                                  
     Accordingly, the decision of the court of appeals is                        
affirmed.                                                                        
                                    Judgment affirmed.                           
     Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright,  Resnick, F.E.                  
Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.