Case Name: Thomas, Appellant, v. Huffman, Warden, Appellee
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1998-12-30
Citations: 84 Ohio St. 3d 266
Docket Number: No. 98-1465
Parties: Thomas, Appellant, v. Huffman, Warden, Appellee.
Judges: Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, Third Service
Volume: 84
Pages: 266–267

Head Matter:
Thomas, Appellant, v. Huffman, Warden, Appellee.
[Cite as Thomas v. Huffman (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 266.]
(No. 98-1465
Submitted December 2, 1998
Decided December 30, 1998.)
James T. Thomas III, pro se.
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Philip R. Cummings, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Thomas asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his habeas corpus petition.
Thomas's contention lacks merit because his claims are not cognizable in habeas corpus. See, e.g., Gaskins v. Shiplevy (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 149, 150, 656 N.E.2d 1282, 1283 (double jeopardy); Cornell v. Schotten (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 466, 467, 633 N.E.2d 1111, 1112 (ineffective assistance of counsel); In re Copley (1972), 29 Ohio St.2d 35, 58 O.O.2d 98, 278 N.E.2d 358 (equal protection); Mattox v. Sacks (1961), 172 Ohio St. 385, 16 O.O.2d 243, 176 N.E.2d 221 (improper remarks made' by prosecuting attorney). Thomas had adequate legal remedies by an appeal or postconviction relief to raise his claimed errors. See State ex rel. Massie v. Rogers (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 449, 450, 674 N.E.2d 1383, 1383.
Based on the foregoing, the court of appeals properly dismissed the habeas corpus petition. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.