Opinion
No. 94-2542
Submitted January 10, 1995 —
Decided March 1, 1995.
IN HABEAS CORPUS.
Petitioner, Bruce Andrew Brown, alleges that he was convicted of ten counts of grand theft, eight counts of forgery, eight counts of uttering, and eighteen counts of tampering with records, and that his minimum sentence is fifty-two years. He also alleges that the convictions resulted because he continued to practice as an attorney after being disbarred by the state of New York.
Petitioner further alleges that the trial court has refused to grant bail pending appeal, even though he attended all preconviction sessions of court and has significant ties to the community. He requests a writ of habeas corpus and an order granting bail and suspending execution of sentence. He cites State ex rel. Pirman v. Money (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 591, 635 N.E.2d 26.
Bruce Andrew Brown, pro se.
In Pirman, supra, this court held that habeas corpus is the proper action to seek postconviction bail, overruling Dapice v. Stickrath (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 298, 533 N.E.2d 339, and Lessin v. McFaul (1992), 62 Ohio St.3d 417, 583 N.E.2d 1306, which had held that habeas corpus was improper because it did not attack the sentencing court's jurisdiction as required by R.C. 2725.05. However, Pirman emphasized that habeas corpus will lie "notwithstanding the fact that only nonjurisdictional issues are involved, but only where there is no adequate legal remedy, e.g., appeal or postconviction relief." (Emphasis added.) 69 Ohio St.3d at 593, 635 N.E.2d at 29. Petitioner makes no allegation that he has applied to the court of appeals for bail. App.R. 8(B) states in part:
"Application for release on bail and for suspension of execution of sentence after a judgment of conviction shall be made in the first instance in the trial court. Thereafter, if such application is denied, a motion for bail and suspension of execution of sentence pending review may be made to the court of appeals or to two judges thereof." (Emphasis added.)
Accordingly, petitioner's request for a writ of habeas corpus is premature. He has an adequate remedy at law by way of application to the court of appeals.
Writ denied.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., concur.