Opinion ID: 774819
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Ohio's Post-Conviction Scheme

Text: 94 Petitioner contends that Ohio's post-conviction scheme fails to provide defendants an adequate corrective process for reviewing claims of constitutional violations. 95 The district court concluded that habeas corpus cannot be used to mount challenges to a state's scheme of post-conviction relief, relying upon Kirby v. Dutton, 794 F.2d 245, 246 (6th Cir. 1986) (habeas corpus is not the proper means by which prisoners should challenge errors or deficiencies in state post-conviction proceedings). Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that states have no constitutional obligation to provide post-conviction remedies. See Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 557 (1987) (there is no constitutional right to counsel when mounting collateral attacks upon convictions in state court). 96 We affirm that issue, based upon the reasoning of the district court.