Opinion
No. 102712
03-27-2015
JEFFERY GOODWIN PETITIONER v. DAVID CARROLL, COMMISSIONER RESPONDENT
FOR PETITIONER Jeffery Goodwin, pro se #0309421 Cleveland Workhouse 4041 Northfield Road Highland Hills, Ohio 44122 ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT Barbara A. Langhenry Director of Law BY: Annette G. Butler City of Cleveland - Law Department 601 Lakeside Avenue, Room 106 Cleveland, Ohio 44114
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION JUDGMENT: PETITION DISMISSED Writ of Habeas Corpus
Order No. 483862
FOR PETITIONER
Jeffery Goodwin, pro se
#0309421
Cleveland Workhouse
4041 Northfield Road
Highland Hills, Ohio 44122
ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT
Barbara A. Langhenry
Director of Law
BY: Annette G. Butler
City of Cleveland - Law Department
601 Lakeside Avenue, Room 106
Cleveland, Ohio 44114
ANITA LASTER MAYS, J.:
{¶1} Jeffery Goodwin ("Goodwin") has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Goodwin asserts that he is being unlawfully restrained in the Cleveland Workhouse located at 4041 Northfield Road, Highland Hills, Ohio 44122. Goodwin contends his confinement is illegal due to the alleged violation of his right to have counsel present at sentencing and because he believes the sentence imposed on him otherwise violated his constitutional rights. For the reasons that follow, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is sua sponte dismissed.
{¶2} Where there is an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law, the extraordinary writ of habeas corpus is not available. Brown v. Bradshaw, 126 Ohio St.3d 265, 2010-Ohio-3758, 933 N.E.2d 259. Goodwin has an adequate remedy by way of direct appeal from his conviction and sentence to raise allegations of sentencing errors and the alleged violation of his right to have counsel present at critical stages in the criminal proceedings. Id. at ¶ 1 (appeal is an adequate remedy to raise claims that accused was denied his right to have counsel present at a critical stage of the proceedings); Majoros v. Collins, 64 Ohio St.3d 442, 443, 596 N.E.2d 1038 (1992) (the Ohio Supreme Court has "consistently held that sentencing errors are not jurisdictional and are not cognizable in habeas corpus").
{¶3} Goodwin's petition is also defective because it is not notarized or verified. Failure to verify a petition in compliance with R.C. 2725.04 is grounds for dismissal of the petition. McGrath v. McFaul, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 90043, 2007-Ohio-4440, ¶ 5, citing Chari v. Vore, 91 Ohio St.3d 323, 2001-Ohio 49, 744 N.E.2d 76, and Sidle v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 89 Ohio St.3d 520, 2000-Ohio-237, 733 N.E.2d 1115.
{¶4} Petition dismissed.
Accordingly, the court dismisses the petition for habeas corpus. Costs assessed against the petitioner. This court directs the clerk of courts to serve upon the parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. Civ.R. 58(B). /s/_________
ANITA LASTER MAYS, JUDGE
LARRY A. JONES, SR., P.J., and
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR