Daggett v. Bradshaw

 Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary

As part of a negotiated agreement, Appellant pled guilty to robbery and was sentenced to six years' imprisonment. The sentencing court issued two nunc pro tunc orders to correct an error in the original sentencing entry. On appeal, Appellant argued, inter alia, that the sentencing court lacked the authority to issue the nunc pro tunc entries. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's claims were not cognizable in habeas corpus because (1) Appellant had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law; (2) sentencing orders are, in general, not cognizable in habeas corpus; and (3) a nunc pro tunc order correcting a clerical error in a sentencing entry is not unlawful.

Download PDF
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Daggett v. Bradshaw, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-4765.] NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published. SLIP OPINION NO. 2013-OHIO-4765 DAGGETT, APPELLANT, v. BRADSHAW, WARDEN, APPELLEE. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Daggett v. Bradshaw, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-4765.] Habeas corpus Adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law exists for raising a claim of sentencing error Court of appeals dismissal of petition affirmed. (No. 2013-0562 Submitted October 9, 2013 Decided November 6, 2013.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Richland County, No. 12CA99, 2013-Ohio-713. ____________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals granting the motion to dismiss of appellee, Margaret Bradshaw, warden of the Richland Correctional Institution, and dismissing the petition of appellant, Leotis M. Daggett, for a writ of habeas corpus. On June 15, 2011, as part of a negotiated agreement, Daggett pled guilty to a charge of robbery and was sentenced to six years in prison. The sentencing entry stated that the robbery was a felony of the fourth degree. The SUPREME COURT OF OHIO sentencing court issued two nunc pro tunc orders to correct an error in the original entry. The first again said that the charge was a felony of the fourth degree; the second, issued on July 8, 2011, corrected the entry to reflect that the charge was a second-degree felony. {¶ 2} Daggett argues that the sentencing court lacked authority to issue the nunc pro tunc entries and that he has already served the maximum sentence for a fourth-degree felony. {¶ 3} Daggett s claims are not cognizable in habeas corpus, because he had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law by way of appeal, and in general, sentencing orders are not cognizable in habeas corpus. State ex rel. Sneed v. Anderson, 114 Ohio St.3d 11, 2007-Ohio-2454, 866 N.E.2d 1084, ¶ 7. {¶ 4} Moreover, a nunc pro tunc order correcting a clerical error in a sentencing entry violates neither Crim.R. 32(C) nor State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197, 2008-Ohio-3330, 893 N.E.2d 163. State ex rel. Womack v. Marsh, 128 Ohio St.3d 303, 2011-Ohio-229, 943 N.E.2d 1010, ¶ 15; State v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303, 2011-Ohio-5204, 958 N.E.2d 142, ¶ 17-20. Judgment affirmed. O CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, FRENCH, and O NEILL, JJ., concur. ____________________ Leotis M. Daggett, pro se. Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Thelma Thomas Price, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. ________________________ 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.