From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Huth v. Maxwell

Supreme Court of Ohio
Jun 17, 1964
199 N.E.2d 741 (Ohio 1964)

Opinion

No. 38760

Decided June 17, 1964.

Habeas corpus — Not substitute for appeal — Validity of sentence under Habitual Criminal Act — Validity of prior conviction.

IN HABEAS CORPUS.

This is an action in habeas corpus originating in this court. Petitioner, Gerald F. Huth, having previously been convicted twice for the crime of robbery and once for the crime of pocket picking was indicted on April 11, 1955, by the Grand Jury of Summit County as an habitual criminal. Petitioner waived a jury and, while represented by counsel, was tried to the court. The court determined that he was an habitual criminal, vacated his previous sentence and under the provisions of Section 2961.11, Revised Code, sentenced him to 25 years in the penitentiary.

Mr. Gerald F. Huth, in propria persona. Mr. William B. Saxbe, attorney general, and Mr. William C. Baird, for respondent.


It is petitioner's contention that the court was without jurisdiction to find that he was an habitual criminal. He bases this argument on the ground that he pleaded guilty to unarmed robbery in 1949, without the assistance of counsel, and that, therefore, such 1949 conviction was void. He urges that if such 1949 conviction was void he did not have three previous convictions upon which an indictment as an habitual criminal could be based, and that the habitual criminal indictment was void.

The habitual criminal statute provides for an augmentation of penalty for the last conviction of a repetitive offender. Thus, any error therein relates to sentence, and it is well established that the validity of a sentence under the Habitual Criminal Act must be raised by appeal in the original action and cannot be raised by habeas corpus. Therefore, the validity of one of the prior convictions upon which an habitual criminal indictment is based cannot be raised in a habeas corpus proceeding relating to the habitual criminal sentence. Maloney v. Maxwell, Warden, 174 Ohio St. 84.

Petitioner remanded to custody.

TAFT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, MATTHIAS, O'NEILL, GRIFFITH, HERBERT and GIBSON, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Huth v. Maxwell

Supreme Court of Ohio
Jun 17, 1964
199 N.E.2d 741 (Ohio 1964)
Case details for

Huth v. Maxwell

Case Details

Full title:HUTH .MAXWELL, WARDEN

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Jun 17, 1964

Citations

199 N.E.2d 741 (Ohio 1964)
199 N.E.2d 741

Citing Cases

State v. Johnson

The habitual criminal statute provides for an augmentation of penalty for the last conviction of a repetitive…

Foston v. Maxwell

A question as to the validity of the convictions upon which a habitual-criminal indictment is based cannot be…