Hillman v. Bunting
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Hillman v. Bunting, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-5197.] 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. 2014-OHIO-5197 HILLMAN, APPELLANT, v. BUNTING, WARDEN, APPELLEE. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Hillman v. Bunting, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-5197.] Habeas corpus—Sentencing entry not invalid—Writ denied. (No. 2014-0117—Submitted November 18, 2014—Decided November 25, 2014.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Marion County, No. 9-13-53. _____________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} Appellant, Dallas Hillman, appeals the dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus. Hillman claims that because the trial court allowed him to withdraw his guilty plea after he had been convicted and sentenced based upon that plea, there is no longer a valid judgment of conviction. However, the May 23, 2012 judgment granting Hillman’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea was subsequently vacated by the court of appeals in State v. Hillman, 9th Dist. Wayne No. 12CA0028, 2013-Ohio-982. We denied review of that decision. 136 Ohio St.3d 1561, 2013-Ohio-4861, 996 N.E.2d 987. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶ 2} Therefore, the original journal entry sentencing Hillman for his drug offenses is still valid. We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. Judgment affirmed. O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. _____________________ Dallas Hillman, pro se. Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Stephanie Watson, Principal 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.
