Case Name: The State ex rel. Tucker, Appellant, v. Rogers, Warden, Appellee
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1993-02-24
Citations: 66 Ohio St. 3d 36
Docket Number: No. 92-1710
Parties: The State ex rel. Tucker, Appellant, v. Rogers, Warden, Appellee.
Judges: Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, Third Service
Volume: 66
Pages: 36–36

Head Matter:
The State ex rel. Tucker, Appellant, v. Rogers, Warden, Appellee.
[Cite as State ex rel. Tucker v. Rogers (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 36.]
(No. 92-1710
Submitted January 19, 1993
Decided February 24, 1993.)
Hubert Tucker, Sr., pro se.

Opinion:
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.