Wright v. Money, 82 Ohio St. 3d 424

Per Curiam.

We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals for the reasons stated in its opinion. The documentation attached to Wright’s petition established that he was convicted and sentenced by the general division of the common pleas court rather than the probate division. Although his trial court judge might have normally been a probate division judge, the docket of journal entries indicates his assignment to preside over the criminal case in the general division. See, e.g., Sup.R. 3(B)(2), which permits presiding judges of common pleas courts to assign judges of the court “on a temporary basis to serve in another division of the court as required by the business of the court.”

Judgment affirmed.

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

Case Details

Case Name: Wright v. Money

Court Name: Ohio Supreme Court

Date Published: Jul 29, 1998

Citations: 82 Ohio St. 3d 424; 696 N.E.2d 596; 1998 Ohio LEXIS 1869; No. 98-118

Docket Number: No. 98-118

Court Abbreviation: Ohio