In Re Ames

Ohio Supreme Court

In Re Ames

98 N.E.2d 2, 155 Ohio St. 184, 155 Ohio St. (N.S.) 184, 44 Ohio Op. 161, 1951 Ohio LEXIS 554

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided March 28, 1951·No. 32128·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

*185 Per Curiam.

The remedy for review of errors or irregularities in the conduct of a criminal trial or sentence after, conviction is by appeal and not by habeas corpus, where the committing court had jurisdiction of the subject matter and the person. Ex parte Van Hagan. 25 Ohio St., 426; In re Whitmore, 137 Ohio St., 313, 29 N. E. (2d), 363; In re Burson, 152 Ohio St., 375, 89 N. E. (2d), 651.

Petitioner remanded to custody.

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Middleton, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur. Stewart and Taft, JJ., concur in the judgment for the reasons stated in the concurring opinion in In re Levenson, 154 Ohio St., 278.

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

*185 Per Curiam.

The remedy for review of errors or irregularities in the conduct of a criminal trial or sentence after, conviction is by appeal and not by habeas corpus, where the committing court had jurisdiction of the subject matter and the person. Ex parte Van Hagan. 25 Ohio St., 426; In re Whitmore, 137 Ohio St., 313, 29 N. E. (2d), 363; In re Burson, 152 Ohio St., 375, 89 N. E. (2d), 651.

Petitioner remanded to custody.

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Middleton, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur. Stewart and Taft, JJ., concur in the judgment for the reasons stated in the concurring opinion in In re Levenson, 154 Ohio St., 278.

In Re Ames, 98 N.E.2d 2, 155 Ohio St. 184, 155 Ohio St. (N.S.) 184, 44 Ohio Op. 161, 1951 Ohio LEXIS 554 (Ohio 1951).

Pincite

98 N.E.2d 2 (In Re Ames) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related