Hearns v. Maxwell

Ohio Supreme Court

Hearns v. Maxwell

176 Ohio St. (N.S.) 387

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 24, 1964

DocketNo. 38732

StatusPublished

This text of 176 Ohio St. (N.S.) 387 (Hearns v. Maxwell) 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

Hearns v. Maxwell, 176 Ohio St. (N.S.) 387 (Ohio 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Petitioner’s sole contention in this case is that the prosecution did not prove the essential elements of the crimes for which petitioner was charged. Petitioner urges that he could not be guilty of burglary because the house which was burglarized belonged to his sister, that he had a key thereto and permission to enter it at any time. Based on this, he contends that since he could not be guilty of burglary he also could not be guilty of larceny. In addition to his legal contentions, petitioner denies any guilt of the crimes.

The matters which petitioner urges relate to his claimed innocence of the crime. It is well established that the guilt or innocence of an accused of the crime for which he was- convicted is not a question cognizable in habeas corpus but can be reached only by appeal. In re Poage, 87 Ohio St., 72; and Spence v. Sacks, Warden, 173 Ohio St., 419.

Petitioner remanded to custody.

Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, O’Neill, Griffith, Herbert and Gibson, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

Petitioner’s sole contention in this case is that the prosecution did not prove the essential elements of the crimes for which petitioner was charged. Petitioner urges that he could not be guilty of burglary because the house which was burglarized belonged to his sister, that he had a key thereto and permission to enter it at any time. Based on this, he contends that since he could not be guilty of burglary he also could not be guilty of larceny. In addition to his legal contentions, petitioner denies any guilt of the crimes.

The matters which petitioner urges relate to his claimed innocence of the crime. It is well established that the guilt or innocence of an accused of the crime for which he was- convicted is not a question cognizable in habeas corpus but can be reached only by appeal. In re Poage, 87 Ohio St., 72; and Spence v. Sacks, Warden, 173 Ohio St., 419.

Petitioner remanded to custody.

Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, O’Neill, Griffith, Herbert and Gibson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 Ohio St. (N.S.) 387, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hearns-v-maxwell-ohio-1964.