Ex parte Rone

Ohio Supreme Court

Ex parte Rone

171 Ohio St. (N.S.) 402

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided December 28, 1960·No. No. 36531·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The trial court had jurisdiction of the person of the petitioner and of the offense with which he was charged and of which he was found guilty. Petitioner had an adequate remedy by way of appeal from the judgment of conviction to review the alleged errors of which he complains and cannot now have such a review by a proceeding in habeas corpus.

Petitioner remanded to custody.

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Taet, Matthias, Bell, Herbert and O’Neill, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

The trial court had jurisdiction of the person of the petitioner and of the offense with which he was charged and of which he was found guilty. Petitioner had an adequate remedy by way of appeal from the judgment of conviction to review the alleged errors of which he complains and cannot now have such a review by a proceeding in habeas corpus.

Petitioner remanded to custody.

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Taet, Matthias, Bell, Herbert and O’Neill, JJ., concur.

Ex parte Rone, 171 Ohio St. (N.S.) 402 (Ohio 1960).

Pincite

171 Ohio St. (N.S.) 402 (Ex parte Rone) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.