Lowther v. Maxwell

Ohio Supreme Court

Lowther v. Maxwell

175 Ohio St. (N.S.) 39

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 12, 1963

DocketNo. 38025

StatusPublished

This text of 175 Ohio St. (N.S.) 39 (Lowther 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

Lowther v. Maxwell, 175 Ohio St. (N.S.) 39 (Ohio 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Basically petitioner’s argument is that the killing of Rudolph Kordis constituted but one transaction, and that the conviction and sentencing on two counts therefor constituted double jeopardy.

The plea of double jeopardy is a matter of defense which must be raised in the trial court and pursued by way of appeal. Double jeopardy does not go to the jurisdiction of the trial court and, therefore, is not a ground for relief by habeas corpus. Vertz v. Sacks, Warden, 173 Ohio St., 459; Weaver v. Sacks, Warden, 173 Ohio St., 415; and Maloney v. Maxwell, Warden, 174 Ohio St., 84.

[40]*40In any event, petitioner is not entitled to release in habeas corpus. Even conceding that the sentence on one count would be void on the grounds alleged by petitioner, he is still properly incarcerated on his sentence on the other count and, therefore, is not entitled to release in habeas corpus. Page v. Green, Supt., 174 Ohio St., 178.

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.

Basically petitioner’s argument is that the killing of Rudolph Kordis constituted but one transaction, and that the conviction and sentencing on two counts therefor constituted double jeopardy.

The plea of double jeopardy is a matter of defense which must be raised in the trial court and pursued by way of appeal. Double jeopardy does not go to the jurisdiction of the trial court and, therefore, is not a ground for relief by habeas corpus. Vertz v. Sacks, Warden, 173 Ohio St., 459; Weaver v. Sacks, Warden, 173 Ohio St., 415; and Maloney v. Maxwell, Warden, 174 Ohio St., 84.

[40]*40In any event, petitioner is not entitled to release in habeas corpus. Even conceding that the sentence on one count would be void on the grounds alleged by petitioner, he is still properly incarcerated on his sentence on the other count and, therefore, is not entitled to release in habeas corpus. Page v. Green, Supt., 174 Ohio St., 178.

Petitioner remanded to custody.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 Ohio St. (N.S.) 39, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lowther-v-maxwell-ohio-1963.