Lamonge v. Maxwell

Ohio Supreme Court

Lamonge v. Maxwell

206 N.E.2d 562, 2 Ohio St. 2d 111, 31 Ohio Op. 2d 152, 1965 Ohio LEXIS 498

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided April 21, 1965·No. No. 39252·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

As grounds for his release petitioner urges that the amendment to the indictment voided the indictment, that the grand jury was improperly selected, and that errors were committed in relation to the admission of evidence and in the cross-examination of petitioner.

The issues raised by petitioner are not cognizable in habeas corpus but must be raised by means of the statutory post-conviction remedy of appeal. Walker v. Maxwell, Warden, 1 Ohio St. 2d 136.

Petitioner remanded to custody.

Taft, O. J., Zimmermah, Matthias, 0 ’Neill, Herbert, SchNeider and BrowN, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

As grounds for his release petitioner urges that the amendment to the indictment voided the indictment, that the grand jury was improperly selected, and that errors were committed in relation to the admission of evidence and in the cross-examination of petitioner.

The issues raised by petitioner are not cognizable in habeas corpus but must be raised by means of the statutory post-conviction remedy of appeal. Walker v. Maxwell, Warden, 1 Ohio St. 2d 136.

Petitioner remanded to custody.

Taft, O. J., Zimmermah, Matthias, 0 ’Neill, Herbert, SchNeider and BrowN, JJ., concur.

Lamonge v. Maxwell, 206 N.E.2d 562, 2 Ohio St. 2d 111, 31 Ohio Op. 2d 152, 1965 Ohio LEXIS 498 (Ohio 1965).

Pincite

206 N.E.2d 562 (Lamonge v. Maxwell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related