State ex rel. Cotton v. Ghee, 82 Ohio St. 3d 404

Per Curiam.

We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. Insofar as Cotton’s December 1997 filing may be construed as a successive habeas corpus petition, res judicata precluded its filing. State ex rel. Brantley v. Ghee (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 287, 288, 685 N.E.2d 1243, 1244. And even if the court of appeals should not have treated Cotton’s December 1997 filing as a second habeas corpus petition, he had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law by appealing the court of appeals’ November 1997 dismissal of his initial petition. Cotton’s postjudgment filings did not extend the time for him to perfect an appeal from the November 1997 judgment. See, e.g., Key v. Mitchell (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 89, 90-91, 689 N.E.2d 548, 549.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Case Details

Case Name: State ex rel. Cotton v. Ghee

Court Name: Ohio Supreme Court

Date Published: Jul 29, 1998

Citations: 82 Ohio St. 3d 404; 696 N.E.2d 580; 1998 Ohio LEXIS 1867; No. 98-448

Docket Number: No. 98-448

Court Abbreviation: Ohio