Hanovich v. Alvis

Ohio Supreme Court

Hanovich v. Alvis

170 Ohio St. (N.S.) 360

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 24, 1960

DocketNo. 36278

StatusPublished

This text of 170 Ohio St. (N.S.) 360 (Hanovich v. Alvis) 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

Hanovich v. Alvis, 170 Ohio St. (N.S.) 360 (Ohio 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

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

Petitioner remanded to custody.

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Taft, Matthias, Bell, Herbert and Peck, 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. Petitioner had an adequate remedy by appeal from the judgment of conviction to review the alleged errors and irregularities and cannot now have such a review by a proceeding in habeas corpus.

Petitioner remanded to custody.

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Taft, Matthias, Bell, Herbert and Peck, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

170 Ohio St. (N.S.) 360, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hanovich-v-alvis-ohio-1960.