midpage

Birns v. SweeneyBirns v. Sweeney

Ohio Supreme Court
Jul 12, 1950
32294
Versions:154 Ohio St. (N.S.) 137
154 Ohio St. 137
93 N.E.2d 562
42 Ohio Op. 199
1950 Ohio LEXIS 395
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, Stewart, Turner and Tart, JJ., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Birns v. Sweeney
Court Name: Ohio Supreme Court
Date Published: Jul 12, 1950
Citations: 154 Ohio St. (N.S.) 137; 154 Ohio St. 137; 93 N.E.2d 562; 42 Ohio Op. 199; 1950 Ohio LEXIS 395; 32294
Docket Number: 32294
Court Abbreviation: Ohio
Log In