Meek v. Maxwell

Ohio Supreme Court

Meek v. Maxwell

175 Ohio St. (N.S.) 565

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 11, 1964

DocketNo. 38481

StatusPublished

This text of 175 Ohio St. (N.S.) 565 (Meek 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

Meek v. Maxwell, 175 Ohio St. (N.S.) 565 (Ohio 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Petitioner contends that he was denied his constitutional rights because the court, in September 1962, would not allow him to change his plea to not guilty and would not grant him a continuance in order to obtain a new attorney. There is no record to substantiate either of these claims. However, even if true, such facts would not entitle petitioner to release by habeas corpus. The allowance of a change of plea is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Crider v. Maxwell, Warden, 174 Ohio St., 190. In a like manner, the granting or refusal of a continuance lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. 15 Ohio Jursiprudence (2d), 665, Criminal Law, Section 494; and 11 Ohio Jurisprudence (2d), 168, Continuances, Section 2.

[566]*566Rulings of a trial court which are based upon an exercise of the court’s discretion are not reviewable in an action in habeas corpus but must be attacked by appeal.

Petitioner remanded to custody.

Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, O’Neill, Griffith, Herbert and Gibson, JJ., concur. Matthias, J., not participating.

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

Per Curiam.

Petitioner contends that he was denied his constitutional rights because the court, in September 1962, would not allow him to change his plea to not guilty and would not grant him a continuance in order to obtain a new attorney. There is no record to substantiate either of these claims. However, even if true, such facts would not entitle petitioner to release by habeas corpus. The allowance of a change of plea is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Crider v. Maxwell, Warden, 174 Ohio St., 190. In a like manner, the granting or refusal of a continuance lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. 15 Ohio Jursiprudence (2d), 665, Criminal Law, Section 494; and 11 Ohio Jurisprudence (2d), 168, Continuances, Section 2.

[566]*566Rulings of a trial court which are based upon an exercise of the court’s discretion are not reviewable in an action in habeas corpus but must be attacked by appeal.

Petitioner remanded to custody.

Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, O’Neill, Griffith, Herbert and Gibson, JJ., concur. Matthias, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 Ohio St. (N.S.) 565, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meek-v-maxwell-ohio-1964.