Opinion
No. 38649
Decided May 6, 1964.
Criminal law — Accused properly prosecuted — Process issued by court of competent jurisdiction — Method by which accused's presence acquired — Validity of conviction not affected thereby — Habeas corpus.
IN HABEAS CORPUS.
This is an action in habeas corpus instituted in this court. On June 29, 1962, petitioner, Tommie Lee Jetter, was arrested in Lexington, Kentucky, for carrying concealed weapons. On the same day, he was released to the Dayton city police as a fugitive and was returned by them to the city of Dayton. On July 2, 1962, while confined in the county jail, he was arrested on a warrant charging him with an armed robbery occurring on June 28, 1962. On the same day, the prosecuting attorney prepared an information charging petitioner with this crime. On July 6, 1962, petitioner signed the proper statutory waiver of prosecution by indictment and a separate waiver of counsel. He then pleaded guilty to the crime charged in the information and was sentenced to the Ohio Reformatory. Subsequently, it was discovered that he had had a prior felony conviction, and he was transferred to the Ohio Penitentiary.
Mr. Tommie Lee Jetter, in propria persona. Mr. William B. Saxbe, attorney general, and Mr. William C. Baird, for respondent.
The primary issue raised by petitioner is that his removal from Kentucky to Ohio was unlawful, and that he is thus being illegally restrained.
It is well established that, so long as an accused is properly prosecuted on an indictment or information under process legally issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, the method by which his presence was acquired in the state in no way affects the validity of his conviction. Tomkalski v. Maxwell, Warden. 175 Ohio St. 377.
The second question raised by petitioner is that the warrant upon which he was arrested was based on a proposed information.
The validity of an accused's conviction does not depend upon the regularity of the process by which he is taken into custody but rather upon a proper invocation of the trial court's jurisdiction by way of a valid indictment or information. Brown v. Maxwell, Warden, 174 Ohio St. 29; and Wells v. Maxwell, Warden, 174 Ohio St. 198. There is no question in the present case that a valid information was returned against petitioner, and that he pleaded guilty thereto after signing the proper waivers.
Petitioner remanded to custody.
TAFT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, MATTHIAS, O'NEILL, GRIFFITH, HERBERT and GIBSON, JJ., concur.