Baker v. Sacks

Ohio Supreme Court

Baker v. Sacks

172 Ohio St. (N.S.) 293

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided May 31, 1961·No. No. 36881·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Petitioner had an adequate remedy by way of appeal from the judgment of conviction and sentence to review the alleged irregularities and errors of which he here complains and cannot now have such a review by a proceeding in habeas corpus.

Petitioner remanded to custody.

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Taet, Matthias, Bell, Radcliee and O’Neill, JJ., concur. Radcliee, J., of the Fourth Appellate District, sitting by designation in the place and stead of Herbert, J.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Petitioner had an adequate remedy by way of appeal from the judgment of conviction and sentence to review the alleged irregularities and errors of which he here complains and cannot now have such a review by a proceeding in habeas corpus.

Petitioner remanded to custody.

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Taet, Matthias, Bell, Radcliee and O’Neill, JJ., concur. Radcliee, J., of the Fourth Appellate District, sitting by designation in the place and stead of Herbert, J.

Baker v. Sacks, 172 Ohio St. (N.S.) 293 (Ohio 1961).

Pincite

172 Ohio St. (N.S.) 293 (Baker v. Sacks) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.