Ball v. Maxwell

Ohio Supreme Court

Ball v. Maxwell

177 Ohio St. (N.S.) 39

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 21, 1964

DocketNo. 39020

StatusPublished

This text of 177 Ohio St. (N.S.) 39 (Ball v. Maxwell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ball v. Maxwell, 177 Ohio St. (N.S.) 39 (Ohio 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In this action in habeas corpus, petitioner is attacking only his convictions under the November 1960 indictment. It is his contention that he has been denied due process because of a lack of an adequate appellate review.

However, relief by habeas corpus cannot be given, since [40]*40petitioner is still subject to detention under the sentences on the convictions under the 1961 indictment. To entitle one to relief by habeas corpus, the result of such action must effectuate a release from present confinement. Page v. Green, Supt., 174 Ohio St., 178; Neal v. Maxwell, Warden, 176 Ohio St., 206; and Lowther v. Maxwell, Warden, 175 Ohio St., 39.

Petitioner remanded to custody.

Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, O’Neill, Griffith, Herbert and Gibson, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

In this action in habeas corpus, petitioner is attacking only his convictions under the November 1960 indictment. It is his contention that he has been denied due process because of a lack of an adequate appellate review.

However, relief by habeas corpus cannot be given, since [40]*40petitioner is still subject to detention under the sentences on the convictions under the 1961 indictment. To entitle one to relief by habeas corpus, the result of such action must effectuate a release from present confinement. Page v. Green, Supt., 174 Ohio St., 178; Neal v. Maxwell, Warden, 176 Ohio St., 206; and Lowther v. Maxwell, Warden, 175 Ohio St., 39.

Petitioner remanded to custody.

Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, O’Neill, Griffith, Herbert and Gibson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

177 Ohio St. (N.S.) 39, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ball-v-maxwell-ohio-1964.