Adams v. Humphreys
Ohio Supreme Court
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
- Stahl v. ShoemakerOhio Supreme Court · 1977
- In re PiazzaOhio Supreme Court · 1966
3Cited by10 opinions
- Casdorph v. KohlOhio Court of Appeals · 1993
- State Ex Rel. Anderson v. WichtmanOhio Court of Appeals · 2005
- State ex rel. Jones v. Warden, Belmont Corr. Inst.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2021
- Daggett v. BradshawOhio Court of Appeals · 2013
- Drake v. Houk, 07 Ma 206 (3-17-2008)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2008
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.