Ruble v. Sacks

172 Ohio St. (N.S.) 296
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided May 31, 1961·No. No. 36926·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Petitioner had an adequate remedy by way of appeal from the judgment of conviction and sentence to review the alleged errors and irregularities which are nonjurisdictional and of which he here complains and cannot now have such a review by a proceeding in habeas corpus.

Petitioner remanded to custody.

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Taet, Matthias, Bell, Radcliff and O’Neill, JJ., concur. Radcliff, J., of the Fourth Appellate District, sitting by désignation in the place and stead of Herbert, J.

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

Ruble v. Sacks, 172 Ohio St. (N.S.) 296 (Ohio 1961).

172 Ohio St. (N.S.) 296 (Ruble v. Sacks) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.