Hanovich v. Alvis

Ohio Supreme Court

Hanovich v. Alvis

170 Ohio St. (N.S.) 360

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided February 24, 1960·No. No. 36278·Published

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.

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

Pincite

170 Ohio St. (N.S.) 360 (Hanovich v. Alvis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.