In re Bryant

Ohio Supreme Court

In re Bryant

171 Ohio St. (N.S.) 16

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided May 18, 1960·No. No. 36313·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The trial court had jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the person of petitioner. Petitioner could have objected to alleged irregularities in the indictment before trial, had an adequate remedy by way of appeal from the judgment of conviction to review the other alleged errors or irregularities of [17]*17which he here complains 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 subject matter and of the person of petitioner. Petitioner could have objected to alleged irregularities in the indictment before trial, had an adequate remedy by way of appeal from the judgment of conviction to review the other alleged errors or irregularities of [17]*17which he here complains 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.

In re Bryant, 171 Ohio St. (N.S.) 16 (Ohio 1960).

Pincite

171 Ohio St. (N.S.) 16 (In re Bryant) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.