Case Name: In re Pullins
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1951-03-28
Citations: 155 Ohio St. 171
Docket Number: No. 32125
Parties: In re Pullins.
Judges: Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Middleton, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 155
Pages: 171–172

Head Matter:
In re Pullins.
(No. 32125
Decided March 28, 1951.)
Mr. Clifford Pullins, in propria persona.
Mr. C. William O’Neill, attorney general, and Mr. Max H. Dennis, for respondent warden.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
A proceeding in habeas corpus cannot be used to review alleged errors or irregularities in the proceedings or sentence of a court of competent jurisdiction. Ex parte Shaw, 7 Ohio St., 81; Ex parte Van Hagan, 25 Ohio St., 426; In re Allen, 91 Ohio St., 315, 326, 110 N. E., 535; State, ex rel. Drexel, v. Alvis, Warden, 153 Ohio St., 244, 91 N. E. (2d), 22. An adequate remedy at law is afforded by way of review on appeal when the trial court had jurisdiction of the person and subject matter. 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, 154 Ohio St., 278.