Legal Opinion

Adams v. Humphreys

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided November 26, 1986No. 85-2008PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Per curiam

While the facts here are sparse, leaving some doubt as to whether appellant’s conviction was the result of a trial or of a guilty plea, the dismissal of the habeas corpus action below was nonetheless proper because such action may not be used as a substitute for appeal. Stahl v. Shoemaker (1977), 50 Ohio St. 2d 351, 354 [4 O.O. 3d 485], and In re Piazza (1966), 7 Ohio St. 2d 102, 103 [36 O.O. 2d 84],

For reason of the foregoing, the judgment of the court of appeals is hereby affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Celebrezze, C.J., Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, C. Brown, Douglas and Wright, JJ., concur.

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Stahl v. ShoemakerOhio Supreme Court · 1977
  2. In re PiazzaOhio Supreme Court · 1966

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Casdorph v. KohlOhio Court of Appeals · 1993
  2. State Ex Rel. Anderson v. WichtmanOhio Court of Appeals · 2005
  3. State ex rel. Jones v. Warden, Belmont Corr. Inst.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2021
  4. Daggett v. BradshawOhio Court of Appeals · 2013
  5. Drake v. Houk, 07 Ma 206 (3-17-2008)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2008

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API