Plummer v. State of Ohio

195 F.2d 521
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 15, 1952
Docket11417
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 195 F.2d 521 (Plummer v. State of Ohio) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Plummer v. State of Ohio, 195 F.2d 521 (6th Cir. 1952).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was heard upon the transcript of record, and upon the argument of counsel and upon briefs on behalf of the respective parties;

And it appearing that the appellant, Thomas Tecumseh Plummer, has not exhausted remedies available to him in the courts of the State of Ohio, 28 U.S.Code, § 2254; Darr v. Burford, 339 U.S. 200, 70 S.Ct. 587, 94 L.Ed. 761, and it being well settled that a writ of habeas corpus can not be used as a substitute for an appeal from a judgment of conviction in the State court, Tinsley v. Anderson, 171 U.S. 101, 106, 18 S.Ct. 805, 43 L.Ed. 91; U. S. ex rel. Kennedy v. Tyler, 269 U.S. 13, 19, 46 S.Ct. 1, 70 L.Ed. 138.

It Is Ordered that the judgment of the District Court denying appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus be and is affirmed. .

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
195 F.2d 521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/plummer-v-state-of-ohio-ca6-1952.