Summary
In McDougald v. Brunsman, 130 Ohio St.3d 22, 2011-Ohio-4607, 955 N.E.2d 377, the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of McDougald's petition, in part, because "[h]is claims are not cognizable in habeas corpus."
Summary of this case from McDougald v. BowermanOpinion
No. 2011–0796.
2011-09-15
McDOUGALD, Appellant,v.BRUNSMAN, Warden, Appellee.
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Warren County, No. CA2011–02–011.Jerone McDougald, pro se.Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Elizabeth A. Matune, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.PER CURIAM.
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition of appellant, Jerone McDougald, for a writ of habeas corpus. His claims are not cognizable in habeas corpus. See Pishok v. Kelly, 122 Ohio St.3d 292, 2009-Ohio-3452, 910 N.E.2d 1033 (validity or sufficiency of charging instrument); Junius v. Eberlin, 122 Ohio St.3d 53, 2009-Ohio-2383, 907 N.E.2d 1179 (actual innocence); Keith v. Bobby, 117 Ohio St.3d 470, 2008-Ohio-1443, 884 N.E.2d 1067, ¶ 15 (fraud upon the court, prosecutorial misconduct, and perjured testimony).
Judgment affirmed.
O'CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O'DONNELL, LANZINGER, CUPP, and McGEE BROWN, JJ., concur.