Petrowski v. State

2 Citing cases

  1. Strzala v. Gansheimer

    Case No. 2001-A-0090 (Ohio Ct. App. May. 24, 2002)

    In light of this general holding, this court has concluded that actual incarceration in a jail is a prerequisite to the granting of the writ; i.e., if a petitioner is not in the custody of the warden or jailor, the legality of the underlying conviction cannot be challenged in a habeas corpus action. Petrowski v. State (June 30, 1999), 11th Dist. No. 98-L-057, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 3053. In turn, it has been held that a writ of habeas corpus will not lie when a petitioner is only subject to post-release control because the type of restraint involved in post-release control is not sufficient to satisfy the "incarceration" requirement.

  2. ALI v. STATE

    Nos. 98-A-0077 and 98-A-0078 ACCELERATED (Ohio Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2000)   Cited 1 times

    Because the goal of a habeas corpus petition is to effectuate a release from present confinement, the petitioner must still be subjected to some form of custodial detention at the time the petition is adjudicated. Petrowski v. State (June 30, 1999), Lake App. No. 98-L-057, unreported, at 2, 1999 WL 454478. If the petitioner's confinement in prison or jail has terminated, then the legality of such restraint can no longer be determined in a habeas corpus proceeding.