Opinion
No. 36445
Decided July 6, 1960.
Habeas corpus — Not available as substitute for adequate remedy by appeal — Bill of exceptions — Failure to furnish.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Madison County.
The petitioner, who seeks his release from the London Prison Farm by this habeas corpus proceeding originating in the Court of Appeals for Madison County, was indicted for the offense of unlawfully uttering and delivering certain checks with intent to defraud and was represented by counsel, tried, convicted, sentenced by the Common Pleas Court of Cuyahoga County to the Ohio Penitentiary, and later transferred to the London Prison Farm.
The Court of Appeals, after a hearing, found the petitioner to be lawfully in the custody of the respondent and ordered the petition to be dismissed and the petitioner remanded to the custody of the respondent.
An appeal as of right brings the cause to this court for review.
Mr. Thomas A. Mason, Jr., in propria persona. Mr. Mark McElroy, attorney general, and Mr. Aubrey Wendt, for appellee.
Petitioner does not question the jurisdiction of the trial court of either his person or of the offense with which he was charged. He complains because the Court of Appeals did not order a bill of exceptions of the criminal case for use in this habeas corpus proceeding. Such complaint is without merit. A habeas corpus proceeding is not available to review the evidence presented in a criminal trial.
Petitioner complains further that after his conviction and sentence he filed a notice of appeal and requested a bill of exceptions furnished at the county's expense, which request was refused, and that his appeal was thus thwarted, and claims that, therefore, notwithstanding a bill of exceptions was thereafter furnished him and he may still pursue his remedy by securing leave to appeal, he should be granted his freedom by the Court of Appeals for Madison County in this habeas corpus proceeding. Again, the answer is that his remedy is by way of appeal, and that habeas corpus is not a substitute therefor.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
WEYGANDT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, TAFT, MATTHIAS, BELL, HERBERT and PECK, JJ., concur.