Ball v. Maxwell
This text of 204 N.E.2d 62 (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.
Opinion
In this action, petitioner is attacking only the validity of his 1961 convictions. Inasmuch as petitioner is still subject to detention under his 1960 convictions habeas corpus does not lie. To entitle one to relief by habeas corpus a determination of the action in petitioner’s favor 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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
204 N.E.2d 62, 1 Ohio St. 2d 77, 30 Ohio Op. 2d 145, 1965 Ohio LEXIS 560, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ball-v-maxwell-ohio-1965.