Birns v. Sweeney
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
A proceeding in habeas corpus cannot be used as a substitute for the remedy of appeal (Ex parte Elicker, 117 Ohio St., 500, 159 N. E., 478), nor can it be employed as a remedy by a person who has been convicted of a criminal offense and subjected to a fine and imprisonment which he claims to be in excess of the maximum prescribed by law (Ex parte Van Hagan, 25 Ohio St., 426, 432).
The petitioner having pursued the wrong remedy, we do not consider the validity of the sentence.
The relief prayed for is denied.
Petitioner remanded to custody.
Weygandt, C. J., Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Ex Parte ElickerOhio Supreme Court · 1927
3Cited by9 opinions
- In Re GlatzOhio Court of Appeals · 1953
- Barker v. SacksOhio Supreme Court · 1962
- Carmelo v. MaxwellOhio Supreme Court · 1962
- Dean v. MaxwellOhio Supreme Court · 1963
- Foran v. MaxwellOhio Supreme Court · 1962
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.