Case ID: ohio-st_154/html/0137-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Birns [ex parte] v. Sweeney, Sheriff.
    (No. 32294
    Decided July 12, 1950.)
    
      
      Mr. J. Frank Assarello and Mr. Alan Meltser, for petitioner.
    
      Mr. Frank T. Cullitan, prosecuting attorney, Mr. Saul S. Danaceau and Mr. John J: Mahon, for respondent.
   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.