History
  • No items yet
midpage
Adams v. Humphreys
27 Ohio St. 3d 43
Ohio
1986
Check Treatment
Per 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.

Case Details

Case Name: Adams v. Humphreys
Court Name: Ohio Supreme Court
Date Published: Nov 26, 1986
Citation: 27 Ohio St. 3d 43
Docket Number: No. 85-2008
Court Abbreviation: Ohio
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.