Legal Opinion

In Re Ames

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 28, 1951No. 32128PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

The remedy for review of errors or irregularities in the conduct of a criminal trial or sentence after, conviction is by appeal and not by habeas corpus, where the committing court had jurisdiction of the subject matter and the person. Ex parte Van Hagan. 25 Ohio St., 426; In re Whitmore, 137 Ohio St., 313, 29 N. E. (2d), 363; In re Burson, 152 Ohio St., 375, 89 N. E. (2d), 651.

Petitioner remanded to custody.

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Middleton, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur. Stewart and Taft, JJ., concur in the judgment for the reasons stated in the concurring opinion in In re Levenson,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. In Re BursonOhio Supreme Court · 1949
  2. In Re LevensonOhio Supreme Court · 1950
  3. In Re WhitmoreOhio Supreme Court · 1940

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Bednarik v. State of OhioOhio Supreme Court · 1953
  2. Ellis v. StateOhio Supreme Court · 1953
  3. In re StewartOhio Supreme Court · 1952

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

Powered by the Exa API