Maloney v. Maxwell
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
The petitioner bases Ms right to relief on the ground that Section 2961.12, Revised Code, is unconstitutional. He urges this contention on the grounds that such act is retroactive, and that it denied him the equal protection of the laws.
However, even if such question was cognizable in a habeas corpus proceeding, petitioner’s argument in this respect is untenable. It is now a well established principle that habitual criminal acts are valid and do not conflict with the constitutional provisions relating to ex post facto or retroactive laws, due process, equal protection or double jeopardy.…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Gryger v. BurkeSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
- McDonald v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 1901
- State v. HicksOregon Supreme Court · 1958
- Society of Good Neighbors v. Mayor of DetroitMichigan Supreme Court · 1949
- Wood v. ClarkeSupreme Court of Georgia · 1939
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.