Plummer v. State of Ohio
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.
Opinion
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
195 F.2d 521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/plummer-v-state-of-ohio-ca6-1952.