Ball v. Maxwell

177 Ohio St. (N.S.) 39
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Ball v. Maxwell. Read the opinion of the Court — 1 Ohio St. 2d 77
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided October 21, 1964·No. No. 39020·Published

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

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

177 Ohio St. (N.S.) 39 (Ball v. Maxwell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.