From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Freshour v. Tate

Supreme Court of Ohio
Jan 29, 1992
62 Ohio St. 3d 410 (Ohio 1992)

Opinion

No. 90-2134

Submitted July 31, 1991 —

Decided January 29, 1992.

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Ross County, No. 1705.

In 1983, appellant, Paul L. Freshour, was convicted of attempted murder with a firearm specification and sentenced to seven to twenty-five years of imprisonment with three years of actual incarceration for the firearm specification. After appealing the conviction and seeking post-conviction relief, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Court of Appeals for Ross County. The petition alleged ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to argue that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because R.C. 2929.71 (the firearm specification statute) did not become effective until after the crime was committed. The petition alleged further that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because it refused to appoint independent examiners to examine the firearm in question, which it is claimed was tampered with, and because appellant did not have a firearm under his control as required by R.C. 2929.71. The court of appeals dismissed the petition.

The cause is before this court upon an appeal as a matter of right.

Paul L. Freshour, pro se. Lee I. Fisher, Attorney General, and Stephanie R. Mitchell, for appellee.


On appeal, appellant renews the claims concerning the effective date of R.C. 2929.71, the failure to appoint independent examiners, and the tampering with evidence. None of appellant's claimed errors shows a lack of jurisdiction by the trial court, which is required for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus when a petitioner is incarcerated pursuant to a judgment of a court of record. R.C. 2725.05. His claim that R.C. 2929.71 did not become effective until after the crime was committed is wrong. R.C. 2929.71 first went into effect on January 5, 1983. (139 Ohio Laws, Part I, 523, 569-570.) The indictment alleges that the attempted murder occurred on or about February 7, 1983.

Appellant's alleged errors concerning independent examiners and tampering with evidence are procedural matters. "Habeas corpus does not reach procedural errors either in the original trial or attempted appeal therefrom." Parker v. Maxwell (1963), 174 Ohio St. 471, 473, 23 O.O.2d 116, 117, 190 N.E.2d 271, 273.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Freshour v. Tate

Supreme Court of Ohio
Jan 29, 1992
62 Ohio St. 3d 410 (Ohio 1992)
Case details for

Freshour v. Tate

Case Details

Full title:FRESHOUR, APPELLANT, v. TATE, WARDEN, APPELLEE

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Jan 29, 1992

Citations

62 Ohio St. 3d 410 (Ohio 1992)
583 N.E.2d 1301

Citing Cases

State ex Rel. Milgrim v. Munks

Further, we find that the relator has failed to establish that he has been unlawfully restrained of his…

State ex Rel. Freshour v. State

Further, Freshour v. Tate, supra, could not be "remanded" to the common pleas court because it was a habeas…