Opinion
No. 09-CA-0043.
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: November 16, 2009.
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
Writ Dismissed.
Kevin Hughley, Pro Se, for petitioner.
M. Scott Criss, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
Before: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Hon. Julie A. Edwards, J. Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
OPINION
{¶ 1} Kevin Hughley has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus suggesting Petitioner is entitled to immediate release because Petitioner alleges he is incarcerated pursuant to a void sentence. Respondent has filed a Motion to Dismiss.
{¶ 2} Petitioner has filed numerous complaints, appeals and petitions in this Court, the Supreme Court, and the Eighth District Court of Appeals challenging the imposition of a nine month prison term for a Title Offense conviction pursuant to R.C. 4505.19. All of Petitioner's challenges relative to this particular sentence have been denied, and Petitioner has been declared a vexatious litigator by the Supreme Court. Nonetheless, we will once again address Petitioner's claim.
{¶ 3} Petitioner avers the trial court lacked jurisdiction to impose a nine month sentence to be served in prison as opposed to local incarceration. Petitioner does not challenge the length of the sentence. His only challenge is to the location the sentence may be served.
{¶ 4} Petitioner raised this exact issue in Hughley v. Southeastern Correctional Inst. 2009 WL 2986237, 3 (Ohio App. 5 Dist.) wherein we held,
{¶ 5} "Because the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction, the sentence imposed is voidable rather than void. Only a void sentence may be raised by way of a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus." Additionally, Petitioner raised this exact issue in the Supreme Court in Case Number 09-1350. The Supreme Court also declined to issue the requested writ.
{¶ 6} For the reasons contained in Hughley v. Southeastern Correctional Inst. 2009 WL 2986237, 3 (Ohio App. 5 Dist.), we deny the instant Petition.
{¶ 7} MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED.
{¶ 8} PETITION DISMISSED.
{¶ 9} COSTS TO PETITIONER.
Gwin, P.J., Edwards, J., and Delaney, J., concur.
JUDGMENT ENTRY
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is dismissed. Costs to Petitioner.