Home/Ohio Supreme Court/In re Pullins

In re Pullins

155 Ohio St. (N.S.) 171
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided March 28, 1951·No. No. 32125·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

A proceeding in habeas corpus cannot be used to review alleged errors or irregularities in the proceedings or sentence of a court of competent jurisdiction. Ex parte Shaw, 7 Ohio St., 81; Ex parte Van Hagan, 25 Ohio St., 426; In re Allen, 91 Ohio St., 315, 326, 110 N. E., 535; State, ex rel. Drexel, v. Alvis, Warden, 153 Ohio St., 244, 91 N. E. (2d), 22. An adequate remedy at law is afforded by way of review on appeal when the trial court had jurisdiction of the person and subject matter. In re Whitmore, 137 Ohio [172] 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

In re Pullins, 155 Ohio St. (N.S.) 171 (Ohio 1951).

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

Related

In Re Burson
89 N.E.2d 651 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1949)
In Re Levenson
95 N.E.2d 760 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1950)
In Re Whitmore
29 N.E.2d 363 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1940)
State Ex Rel. Drexel v. Alvis
91 N.E.2d 22 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1950)