Giordano v. Amrine, Supt.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Giordano v. Amrine, Supt.

104 N.E.2d 457, 92 Ohio App. 349, 49 Ohio Op. 414, 1952 Ohio App. LEXIS 720

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 1, 1952

Docket183

StatusPublished

This text of 104 N.E.2d 457 (Giordano v. Amrine, Supt.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Giordano v. Amrine, Supt., 104 N.E.2d 457, 92 Ohio App. 349, 49 Ohio Op. 414, 1952 Ohio App. LEXIS 720 (Ohio Ct. App. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

Wiseman, J.

This is an appeal on questions of law from a judgment of the Common Pleas Court of Madison County refusing to release petitioner from custody in a habeas corpus proceeding.

The petitioner was indicted, tried, and convicted as an habitual criminal in Columbiana county. He was sentenced to the Ohio Penitentiary for a term of not less than 25 years.

The petitioner questions the constitutionality of the Habitual Criminal Act, the legality of the indictment, and the validity of the sentence. The indictment properly charged the petitioner with having been convicted of three crimes enumerated in the act. Section 13744- *350 1, General Code. This court held in State v. Mahoney, 59 Ohio App., 58, 17 N. E. (2d), 277, that the Habitual Criminal Act is constitutional.

The petitioner contends that under Section 2166, General Code, the sentence should not have been for a definite term and is, therefore, void. Under the provisions of Section 2166, General Code, sentences shall be ‘ ‘ general and not fixed or limited in their duration. ’ ’ However, in Section 2166, General Code, it is expressly provided that should the sentence be for a definite term “it shall not thereby become void, but the person so sentenced shall be subject to the liabilities of this chapter and receive the benefits thereof, as if he had been sentenced in the manner required by this section. ’ ’ Furthermore, the defect in the sentence is not jurisdictional. In re Winslow, 91 Ohio St., 328, 110 N. E., 539. In State, ex rel. Dye, v. Alvis, Warden, 86 Ohio App., 137, 90 N. E. (2d), 416, this court recently held that ‘ ‘ a defect in the sentence is not jurisdictional. ’ ’ Habeas corpus does not lie to review such sentence, the proper remedy being an appeal.

As we find no error in the record prejudicial to the rights of the petitioner, the judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Hornbeck, P. J., and Miller, J., concur.

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

Wiseman, J.

This is an appeal on questions of law from a judgment of the Common Pleas Court of Madison County refusing to release petitioner from custody in a habeas corpus proceeding.

The petitioner was indicted, tried, and convicted as an habitual criminal in Columbiana county. He was sentenced to the Ohio Penitentiary for a term of not less than 25 years.

The petitioner questions the constitutionality of the Habitual Criminal Act, the legality of the indictment, and the validity of the sentence. The indictment properly charged the petitioner with having been convicted of three crimes enumerated in the act. Section 13744- *350 1, General Code. This court held in State v. Mahoney, 59 Ohio App., 58, 17 N. E. (2d), 277, that the Habitual Criminal Act is constitutional.

The petitioner contends that under Section 2166, General Code, the sentence should not have been for a definite term and is, therefore, void. Under the provisions of Section 2166, General Code, sentences shall be ‘ ‘ general and not fixed or limited in their duration. ’ ’ However, in Section 2166, General Code, it is expressly provided that should the sentence be for a definite term “it shall not thereby become void, but the person so sentenced shall be subject to the liabilities of this chapter and receive the benefits thereof, as if he had been sentenced in the manner required by this section. ’ ’ Furthermore, the defect in the sentence is not jurisdictional. In re Winslow, 91 Ohio St., 328, 110 N. E., 539. In State, ex rel. Dye, v. Alvis, Warden, 86 Ohio App., 137, 90 N. E. (2d), 416, this court recently held that ‘ ‘ a defect in the sentence is not jurisdictional. ’ ’ Habeas corpus does not lie to review such sentence, the proper remedy being an appeal.

As we find no error in the record prejudicial to the rights of the petitioner, the judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Hornbeck, P. J., and Miller, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 N.E.2d 457, 92 Ohio App. 349, 49 Ohio Op. 414, 1952 Ohio App. LEXIS 720, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/giordano-v-amrine-supt-ohioctapp-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack