Summary
stating that the petitioner had an adequate remedy by appeal to review evidentiary errors
Summary of this case from Limpach v. LaneOpinion
No. 33232
Decided January 28, 1953.
Habeas Corpus — Not available to review errors in conduct of trial — Adequate remedy afforded by appeal.
IN HABEAS CORPUS.
The petitioner was indicted on a charge of murder in the second degree, tried and found guilty, and is now serving a sentence in the Ohio Penitentiary. He seeks his release by this proceeding in habeas corpus instituted originally in this court, contending that he did not receive a fair and impartial trial because of perjured testimony, errors in admission and rejection of evidence and conflicting statements in the testimony; and that the verdict was not supported by sufficient evidence and was contrary to the evidence.
To support his contentions, petitioner, in his petition, quotes at length from the bill of exceptions in the criminal case, comments on and discusses at length the testimony contained in the bill of exceptions, and asks this court to "review the statements" of certain witnesses testifying for the state as such statements appear in the bill of exceptions.
Mr. John Francis, for petitioner.
Mr. C. William O'Neill, attorney general, and Mr. Larry H. Snyder, for respondents.
Petitioner had an adequate remedy by way of appeal from the judgment of conviction to review the alleged errors of which he complains, and cannot now have such a review by a proceeding in habeas corpus. In re Whitmore, 137 Ohio St. 313, 29 N.E.2d 363; In re Burson, 152 Ohio St. 375, 89 N.E.2d 651; In re Pullins, 155 Ohio St. 171, 98 N.E.2d 1; In re Ames, 155 Ohio St. 184, 98 N.E.2d 2; In re Stewart, 156 Ohio St. 521, 103 N.E.2d 551.
Petitioner remanded to custody.
WEYGANDT, C.J., MIDDLETON, TAFT, MATTHIAS, HART, ZIMMERMAN and STEWART, JJ., concur.