Title: Drake v. Tyson-Parker

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Drake v. Tyson-Parker, 101 Ohio St.3d 210, 2004-Ohio-711.] 
 
 
DRAKE, APPELLANT, v. TYSON-PARKER, WARDEN, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as Drake v. Tyson-Parker, 101 Ohio St.3d 210, 
2004-Ohio-711.] 
Habeas corpus sought to compel relator’s immediate release from prison — 
Court of appeals’ dismissal of petition affirmed. 
(No. 2003-1644 — Submitted February 3, 2004 — Decided March 
3, 2004.) 
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Lorain County, 
No. 03CA008280. 
____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
In December 1999, the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 
convicted appellant, Shannon Drake, of aggravated robbery and felonious assault 
and sentenced him to prison. 
{¶2} 
On May 20, 2003, Drake filed a petition in the Court of Appeals 
for Lorain County for a writ of habeas corpus to compel appellee, former Lorain 
Correctional Institution Warden Tracy Tyson-Parker, to immediately release him 
from prison.  Drake claimed that he was entitled to release because the jury 
verdicts finding him guilty of aggravated robbery and felonious assault were 
inconsistent with the jury verdict acquitting him of accompanying firearm 
specifications.  Appellee moved to dismiss the petition.  On August 14, 2003, the 
court of appeals granted appellee’s motion and dismissed the petition. 
{¶3} 
On appeal, Drake asserts that the court of appeals erred in 
dismissing his habeas corpus petition.  Drake claims that he is entitled to release 
because of the allegedly inconsistent jury verdicts. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶4} 
“A writ of habeas corpus is warranted in certain extraordinary 
circumstances ‘where there is an unlawful restraint of a person’s liberty and there 
is no adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.’ ”  Johnson v. Timmerman-
Cooper (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 614, 616, 757 N.E.2d 1153, quoting Pegan v. 
Crawmer (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 97, 99, 666 N.E.2d 1091. 
{¶5} 
Even assuming that Drake alleged a facially valid inconsistent-
verdicts claim, he had an adequate remedy at law by appeal to raise his claims.  “ 
‘[H]abeas corpus, like other extraordinary writ actions, is not available where 
there is an adequate remedy at law.’ ”  Agee v. Russell (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 540, 
544, 751 N.E.2d 1043, quoting Gaskins v. Shiplevy (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 380, 
383, 667 N.E.2d 1194.  The fact that Drake has already unsuccessfully invoked 
some of his alternate remedies does not entitle him to the requested extraordinary 
relief.  Russell v. Mitchell (1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 328, 329, 703 N.E.2d 1249. 
{¶6} 
Moreover, Drake waived those claims that he now raises for the 
first time on appeal.  Phillips v. Irwin, 96 Ohio St.3d 350, 2002-Ohio-4758, 774 
N.E.2d 1218, ¶ 6. 
{¶7} 
Based on the foregoing, we hold that Drake had an adequate 
remedy by appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
____________________ 
 
Shannon Drake, pro se. 
 
Jim Petro, Attorney General, and Mark J. Zemba, Assistant Attorney 
General, for appellee. 
____________________