Ball v. Maxwell
204 N.E.2d 62, 1 Ohio St. 2d 77, 30 Ohio Op. 2d 145, 1965 Ohio LEXIS 560
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
Ball v. Maxwell, 204 N.E.2d 62, 1 Ohio St. 2d 77, 30 Ohio Op. 2d 145, 1965 Ohio LEXIS 560 (Ohio 1965).
204 N.E.2d 62 (Ball v. Maxwell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Armstrong v. Wilson
Ohio Court of Appeals, 2026
Matter of Complaint of Totten v. Collins, 08ap-257 (8-19-2008)
2008 Ohio 4185 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2008)
Shomer v. Brunsman, Unpublished Decision (12-12-2006)
Ohio Court of Appeals, 2006
Ali v. State, Unpublished Decision (3-31-2000)
Ohio Court of Appeals, 2000
Ball v. Tate, Unpublished Decision (3-29-2000)
Ohio Court of Appeals, 2000
Bugert v. Haskins, Unpublished Decision (12-20-1999)
Ohio Court of Appeals, 1999
Petrowski v. State, Unpublished Decision (6-30-1999)
Ohio Court of Appeals, 1999
State v. Thomas
400 N.E.2d 897 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1980)
Flowers v. Haskins
267 N.E.2d 430 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1971)