allegation that trial court applied statute not in effect at time of sentencing would only raise non-jurisdictional sentencing error
How later courts described this case
- allegation that trial court applied statute not in effect at time of sentencing would only raise non-jurisdictional sentencing error
- noting that "[w]e have consistently held that sentencing errors are not jurisdictional * * *."
- sentencing errors are not jurisdictional
- “‘[S]entencing errors are 5 not jurisdictional * * *.’”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Per Curiam.
We affirm the decision of the court of appeals. We have consistently held that sentencing errors are not jurisdictional and are not cognizable in habeas corpus. State ex rel. Wynn v. Baker (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 464 , 575 N.E.2d 208 ; Blackburn v. Jago (1988), 39. Ohio St.3d 139, 529 N.E.2d 929 ; Walker v. Maxwell (1965), 1 Ohio St.2d 136 , 30 O.O.2d 487 , 205 N.E.2d 394 .
Judgment affirmed.
Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, Wright, H. Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur.