Smith v. Jago

Ohio Supreme Court

Smith v. Jago

389 N.E.2d 1138, 58 Ohio St. 2d 298, 12 Ohio Op. 3d 288, 1979 Ohio LEXIS 433

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 6, 1979

DocketNo. 78-1338

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 389 N.E.2d 1138 (Smith v. Jago) 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

Smith v. Jago, 389 N.E.2d 1138, 58 Ohio St. 2d 298, 12 Ohio Op. 3d 288, 1979 Ohio LEXIS 433 (Ohio 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This cause is before the court pursuant to an appeal as of right from the dismissal of appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus by the Court of Appeals.

Appellant was convicted of forgery in the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County and was sentenced to a term of two to five years imprisonment on December 23, 1976. Appellant alleges that the sentencing court was without jurisdiction. He makes a number of allegations which revolve around a contention that the indictment failed to state essential elements of the crime. Appellant contends further that extradition from the state of New York was illegal.

The sufficiency of an indictment does not relate to the jurisdiction of the court to try the person for the crime for which he was convicted. The validity of an indictment, after conviction, must be raised by way of appeal from the judgment of conviction. Chapman v. Jago (1976), 48 Ohio St. 2d 51.

Appellant’s claim of illegal extradition does not state a claim in habeas corpus and will not void his conviction. Tomkalski v. Maxwell (1963), 175 Ohio St. 377.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed:

Celebrezze, C. J., Herbert, W. Brown, P. Brown, Sweeney, Locher and Holmes. J J., concur.

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