Chapman v. Jago
This text of 356 N.E.2d 721 (Chapman v. Jago) 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
This cause is before this court pursuant to an appeal as of right from the dismissal of appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus by the Court of Appeals.
Appellant alleges that, prior to his trial and subsequent conviction in the Court of Common Pleas on a charge of aggravated robbery, he filed' a motion to dismiss the indictment for the reason that it did not conclude with the words “against the peace and dignity of the state of Ohio,” as specified in Section 20, Article IV of the Ohio Constitution. The motion to dismiss was denied, and the prosecutor was given leave to amend to include the omitted phrase. Appellant alleges further that, if the indictment was in fact amended, such amendment was made without the approval of the grand jury which had brought the original indictment.
This court’s resolution of appellant’s contention as to the alleged insufficiency of the original indictment makes it unnecessary to examine his further contention that he was tried on a charge not amended by the grand jury.
The question of the sufficiency of the indictment does not relate to the jurisdiction of the court to try appellant for the crime for which he was convicted. Mills v. Maxwell (1963), 174 Ohio St. 523. Appellant’s remedy, if any, is by way of appeal from the judgment of conviction;
[52]*52The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
356 N.E.2d 721, 48 Ohio St. 2d 51, 2 Ohio Op. 3d 167, 1976 Ohio LEXIS 703, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chapman-v-jago-ohio-1976.