Rollins v. Haskins

176 Ohio St. (N.S.) 394
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided June 24, 1964·No. No. 38791·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Petitioner in this action in habeas corpus is attacking only his 1962 conviction. Petitioner is still subject to detention under his 1957 conviction. Habeas corpus lies only if the petitioner is entitled to immediate release upon the determination that the claim urged in the action is well founded. Petitioner, in the present case, would not be entitled to immediate release inasmuch as he is still subject to detention on his 1957 conviction. Thus, habeas corpus does not lie. Page v. Green, Supt., 174 Ohio St., 178; and McNally v. Hill, 293 U. S., 131. Errors which petitioner wishes to urge in relation to his 1962 conviction under such circumstances must be raised by appeal.

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

Rollins v. Haskins, 176 Ohio St. (N.S.) 394 (Ohio 1964).

176 Ohio St. (N.S.) 394 (Rollins v. Haskins) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

McNally v. Hill
293 U.S. 131 (Supreme Court, 1934)