From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mattox v. Sacks

Supreme Court of Ohio
Jul 12, 1961
176 N.E.2d 221 (Ohio 1961)

Opinion

No. 36930

Decided July 12, 1961.

Habeas corpus — Not available as substitute for adequate remedy by appeal.

IN HABEAS CORPUS.

The petitioner was indicted and tried for and convicted of assault with intent to kill and, in another case, of cutting with intent to kill, wound, or maim. He was sentenced for an indefinite term to the Ohio Penitentiary in each case, the sentences to be served concurrently. He seeks his release by this habeas corpus proceeding instituted in this court.

Petitioner alleges that only one criminal act was committed; that two different Grand Juries each returned an indictment against petitioner for the same act; that two trials were held and two convictions and sentences rendered; that his imprisonment is predicated on plural prosecutions for a single criminal act; and that he has been placed in double jeopardy.

Petitioner also lists numerous alleged errors and irregularities, during the trials, which he claims warrant his release, such as the verdicts are contrary to law, against the weight of the evidence, and not supported by sufficient evidence; witnesses were not permitted to testify for petitioner; improper remarks were made by the prosecuting attorney; and there was error in the charges to the jury.

Mr. Pearl R. Mattox, in propria persona. Mr. Mark McElroy, attorney general, and Mr. Aubrey A. Wendt, for respondent.


Petitioner had an adequate remedy by way of appeal from the judgments of conviction and sentence to review the alleged errors and irregularities which are nonjurisdictional and of which he here complains and cannot now have such a review by a proceeding in habeas corpus.

Petitioner remanded to custody.

WEYGANDT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, TAFT, MATTHIAS, BELL, RADCLIFF and O'NEILL, JJ., concur.

RADCLIFF, J., of the Fourth Appellate District, sitting by designation in the place and stead of HERBERT, J.


Summaries of

Mattox v. Sacks

Supreme Court of Ohio
Jul 12, 1961
176 N.E.2d 221 (Ohio 1961)
Case details for

Mattox v. Sacks

Case Details

Full title:MATTOX v. SACKS, WARDEN

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Jul 12, 1961

Citations

176 N.E.2d 221 (Ohio 1961)
176 N.E.2d 221

Citing Cases

Thomas v. Huffman

Thomas's contention lacks merit because his claims are not cognizable in habeas corpus. See, e.g., Gaskins v.…