Birns v. Sweeney

Ohio Supreme Court

Birns v. Sweeney

93 N.E.2d 562, 154 Ohio St. 137, 154 Ohio St. (N.S.) 137, 42 Ohio Op. 199, 1950 Ohio LEXIS 395

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 12, 1950

Docket32294

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 93 N.E.2d 562 (Birns v. Sweeney) 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

Birns v. Sweeney, 93 N.E.2d 562, 154 Ohio St. 137, 154 Ohio St. (N.S.) 137, 42 Ohio Op. 199, 1950 Ohio LEXIS 395 (Ohio 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

A proceeding in habeas corpus cannot be used as a substitute for the remedy of appeal (Ex parte Elicker, 117 Ohio St., 500, 159 N. E., 478), nor can it be employed as a remedy by a person who has been convicted of a criminal offense and subjected to a fine and imprisonment which he claims to be in excess of the maximum prescribed by law (Ex parte Van Hagan, 25 Ohio St., 426, 432).

The petitioner having pursued the wrong remedy, we do not consider the validity of the sentence.

The relief prayed for is denied.

Petitioner remanded to custody.

Weygandt, C. J., Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, Stewart, Turner and Tart, JJ., concur.

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