History
  • No items yet
midpage
Birns v. Sweeney
154 Ohio St. 137
Ohio
1950
Check Treatment

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 prayer for is denied.

Petitioner remanded to custody.

WEYGANDT, C.J., MATTHIAS, HART, ZIMMERMAN, STEWART, TURNER and TAFT, JJ., concur. *Page 139

Case Details

Case Name: Birns v. Sweeney
Court Name: Ohio Supreme Court
Date Published: Jul 12, 1950
Citation: 154 Ohio St. 137
Docket Number: 32294
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.