Case Name: Kirklin, Appellant, v. Enlow, Judge, Appellee
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 2000-08-16
Citations: 89 Ohio St. 3d 455
Docket Number: No. 00-280
Parties: Kirklin, Appellant, v. Enlow, Judge, Appellee.
Judges: Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, Third Service
Volume: 89
Pages: 455–456

Head Matter:
Kirklin, Appellant, v. Enlow, Judge, Appellee.
[Cite as Kirklin v. Enlow (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 455.]
(No. 00-280
Submitted May 23, 2000
Decided August 16, 2000.)
Delmar V. Kirklin, pro se.
Victor V. Vigluicci, Portage County Prosecuting Attorney, and Kelli K. Norman, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Kirklin asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his prohibition action because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to convict and sentence him after it failed to comply with R.C. 2945.06. For the following reasons, Kirklin's claim lacks merit.
An alleged violation of R.C. 2945.06 is not cognizable in an extraordinary writ action and may be remedied only in a direct appeal from a criminal conviction. State ex rel. Collins v. Leonard (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 477, 478, 687 N.E.2d 443, 443-444; Jackson v. Rose (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 51, 679 N.E.2d 684; State v. Pless (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 333, 658 N.E.2d 766, paragraph two of the syllabus.
In addition, habeas corpus, rather than prohibition, is the appropriate remedy for persons claiming entitlement to release from prison. State ex rel. Jackson v. Callahan (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 73, 711 N.E.2d 686. Consequently, Kirklin is not entitled to a writ of prohibition to achieve the same result.
Based on the foregoing, the court of appeals did not err in dismissing Kirklin's prohibition complaint. Accordingly, 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.