Opinion
No. 88-1023
Submitted July 5, 1988 —
Decided October 12, 1988.
Habeas corpus not proper remedy for reviewing errors of sentencing, when.
IN HABEAS CORPUS.
In his petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pro se, petitioner alleges that on October 23, 1986, he was sentenced to from two to fifteen years' imprisonment for robbery, and that on November 24, 1986, Judge P. Daniel Fedders of the Court of Common Pleas of Warren County amended the sentence to from three to fifteen years, after petitioner was in state custody. Petitioner alleges that he brought this matter to the attention of the sentencing court in a petition for postconviction relief, which was dismissed on July 10, 1987. He further alleges that the foregoing facts show a violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, entitling him to remission of sentence.
Respondent has not answered.
Bruce Robert Blackburn, pro se.
Habeas corpus is not a proper remedy for reviewing errors of sentencing by a court of competent jurisdiction. Walker v. Maxwell (1965), 1 Ohio St.2d 136, 30 O.O. 2d 487, 205 N.E.2d 394. Appeal or postconviction relief would be the proper remedy. Since it appears from the face of his petition that petitioner has sought and been denied postconviction relief on this issue, the matter is res judicata. See Anderson v. Maxwell (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 188, 39 O.O. 2d 196, 226 N.E.2d 103. Accordingly, the writ is denied.
Writ denied.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT and H. BROWN, JJ., concur.