History
  • No items yet
midpage
State ex rel. Quillen v. Warden
976 N.E.2d 898
Ohio
2012
Check Treatment
Case Information

*1 [Cite as State ex rel. Quillen v. Warden, 133 Ohio St.3d 161, 2012-Ohio-4299.]

T HE S TATE EX REL . Q UILLEN , A PPELLANT , v. W ARDEN ,

M ARION C ORRECTIONAL I NSTITUTION , A PPELLEE . [Cite as State ex rel. Quillen v. Warden, 133 Ohio St.3d 161, 2012-Ohio-4299.] Habeas corpus—Mandamus sought to correct claimed sentencing error— Adequate remedy at law available—Court of appeals’ denial of writ affirmed. (No. 2012-0811—Submitted September 12, 2012—Decided September 25, 2012.)

A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Marion County, No. 9-12-11.

__________________

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying the writ of habeas corpus requested by appellant, Terrance Quillen. His June 2001 sentencing entry “sufficiently included language that postrelease control was part of his sentence so as to afford him sufficient notice to raise any claimed errors on appeal rather than by extraordinary writ.” State ex rel. Pruitt v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas , 125 Ohio St.3d 402, 2010-Ohio-1808, 928 N.E.2d 722, ¶ 4; McGee v. Sheldon , 132 Ohio St.3d 89, 2012-Ohio-2217, 969 N.E.2d 262, ¶ 1. The sentencing entry “constituted a final, appealable order, and he had an adequate remedy by way of appeal to raise his claims.” State ex rel. Castro v. Corrigan , 129 Ohio St.3d 342, 2011-Ohio-4059, 952 N.E.2d 497, ¶ 3.

Judgment affirmed. O’C ONNOR , C.J., and P FEIFER , L UNDBERG S TRATTON , O’D ONNELL , C UPP , and M C G EE B ROWN , JJ., concur.

L ANZINGER , J., concurs in judgment only.

__________________ Terrance Quillen, pro se.

S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and M. Scott Criss, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

______________________

2

Case Details

Case Name: State ex rel. Quillen v. Warden
Court Name: Ohio Supreme Court
Date Published: Sep 25, 2012
Citation: 976 N.E.2d 898
Docket Number: 2012-0811
Court Abbreviation: Ohio
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.