History
  • No items yet
midpage
Hairston v. Seidner
88 Ohio St. 3d 57
Ohio
2000
Check Treatment
Per Curiam.

We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. Hairston did not attach all of his pertinent commitment papers to his habeas corpus petition. R.C. 2725.04(D); State ex rel. Dozier v. Mack (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 368, 369, 708 N.E.2d 712, 713. A court of record speaks only through its journal entries, Gaskins v. Shiplevy (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 380, 382, 667 N.E.2d 1194, 1196, and Hairston failed to attach a sentencing entry from one of his criminal cases.1

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

. We also deny Hairston’s January 3, 2000 motion for emergency relief. Hairston is not entitled to an investigation concerning his claim that no docket index of this ease was sent to him by the clerk of the court of appeals under S.Ct.Prac.R. V(3), and because of his defective petition, he suffered no prejudice even if his claim had merit.

Case Details

Case Name: Hairston v. Seidner
Court Name: Ohio Supreme Court
Date Published: Feb 23, 2000
Citation: 88 Ohio St. 3d 57
Docket Number: No. 99-1728
Court Abbreviation: Ohio
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.