From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Noble v. McMaken

Supreme Court of Ohio
Mar 10, 1976
45 Ohio St. 2d 236 (Ohio 1976)

Opinion

No. 75-1041

Decided March 10, 1976.

Habeas corpus — Relief denied, when — Postconviction remedies available — R.C. 2953.21 to 2953.24.

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Miami County.

Following his indictment by the Miami County Grand Jury for burglary, appellant, Jess A. Noble, was arraigned, bond was fixed by the court and his trial date was set. When appellant failed to appear for trial on the date set, the Court of Common Pleas revoked his bond and issued a writ of capias for his arrest.

On May 10, 1975, appellant was arrested by Piqua police officers and placed in the Miami County Jail in the custody of appellee, the Sheriff of Miami County.

On June 13, appellant was notified that a jury trial was set for July 3, 1975. On Wednesday, July 2, 1975, appellant filed a complaint for a writ of habeas corpus in the Court of Appeals for Miami County, alleging violation of his constitutional right to "due process."

Appellant's trial began on Thursday, July 3, and, on Monday, July 7, he was found guilty of burglary and sentenced to the penitentiary.

On July 31, appellee moved to dismiss appellant's habeas corpus action for the reasons that appellant "proceeded in an improper manner to achieve his desired legal relief" and because "the propriety of the petitioner's incarceration prior to trial is a moot question."

On September 12, 1975, the Court of Appeals sustained appellee's motion to dismiss.

Appellant's appeal as of right brings the cause to this court for review.

Mr. Augustus L. Ross III, for appellant.

Mr. Robert J. Huffman, prosecuting attorney, for appellee.


In Freeman v. Maxwell (1965), 4 Ohio St.2d 4, this court held "that the availability of the post-conviction remedies provided by Sections 2953.21 to 2953.24, inclusive, Revised Code, is ground for denial of" a writ of habeas corpus.

Accordingly, on authority of Freeman v. Maxwell, supra, and for the reasons stated therein, the judgment of the Court of Appeals, dismissing appellant's complaint for a writ of habeas corpus, is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

O'NEILL, C.J., HERBERT, CORRIGAN, STERN, CELEBREZZE, W. BROWN and P. BROWN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Noble v. McMaken

Supreme Court of Ohio
Mar 10, 1976
45 Ohio St. 2d 236 (Ohio 1976)
Case details for

Noble v. McMaken

Case Details

Full title:NOBLE, APPELLANT, v. MCMAKEN, APPELLEE

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Mar 10, 1976

Citations

45 Ohio St. 2d 236 (Ohio 1976)
344 N.E.2d 129

Citing Cases

Gerhart v. Tate

The court of appeals dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, apparently on…

Keener v. Ridenour

A.B.A. Standards at 86-90. The Ohio Post-Conviction Act, where it is available, is the exclusive means by…