Ball v. Maxwell
| Decision Date | 20 January 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 39171,39171 |
| Citation | 204 N.E.2d 62,1 Ohio St.2d 77 |
| Parties | , 30 O.O.2d 145 BALL v. MAXWELL, Warden. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
This is an action in habeas corpus originating in this court. In November 1960, petitioner, Byron R. Ball, was indicted by the Grand Jury of Cuyahoga County and subsequently, while represented by counsel, was tried and convicted by a jury on three counts of armed robbery, one count of abducting for immoral purposes and one count of rape. The sentences on these convictions were made to run consecutively. After his sentence on these convictions, petitioner was held for trial on another indictment returned on February 24, 1961. This second indictment charged two counts of breaking and entering in the night season and two counts of grand larceny. While represented by counsel he was tried and convicted by a jury on this indictment. He was sentenced to the Ohio Penitentiary on this conviction, the sentences on counts one and two to run concurrently and counts three and four to run consecutively with each other and consecutively with counts one and two.
Byron R. Ball, in propria persona.
William B. Saxbe, Atty. Gen., and William C. Baird, Columbus, for respondent.
In this action, petitioner is attacking only the validity of his 1961 convictions. Inasmuch as petitioner is still subject to detention under his 1960 convictions habeas corpus does not lie. To entitle one to relief by habeas corpus a determination of the action in petitioner's favor must effectuate a release from present confinement. Page v. Green, Supt., 174 Ohio St. 178, 187 N.E.2d 592; Neal v. Maxwell, Warden, 176 Ohio St. 206, 198 N.E.2d 465; and Lowther v. Maxwell, Warden, 175 Ohio St. 39, 191 N.E.2d 172.
Petitioner remanded to custody.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Thomas
...v. Haskins (1971) 25 Ohio St.2d 186, 267 N.E.2d 430, certiorari denied, 403 U.S. 908, 91 S.Ct. 2216, 29 L.Ed.2d 685; Ball v. Maxwell (1965), 1 Ohio St.2d 77, 204 N.E.2d 62; McConnaughy v. Doe (1963), 174 Ohio St. 533, 190 N.E.2d 576. The granting of the writ in Owens is reasonably explicabl......
-
State ex rel. Wilson v. Karnes, 2009 Ohio 5118 (Ohio App. 9/29/2009), 08AP-203.
...restrained of his liberty at the present time. Totten v. Collins, 10th Dist. No. 08AP-257, 2008-Ohio-4185, ¶13, citing Ball v. Maxwell, Warden (1965), 1 Ohio St.2d 77, 78. If the petitioner is subsequently released, the habeas corpus claim is typically rendered moot. Larsen v. State, 92 Ohi......
-
Wilfredo Ali v. State of Ohio, Ashtabula County Sheriff William Johnson, -
...conduct an inquiry into whether the petitioner is being unlawfully restrained of his or her liberty at the present time. Ball v. Maxwell (1965), 1 Ohio St.2d 77, 78 ("To entitle one to relief by habeas corpus a determination of the action in petitioner's favor must effectuate a release from......
-
Jerry Petrowski v. State of Ohio, Lake County Sheriff Daniel A. Dunlap, -
...conduct an inquiry into whether the petitioner is being unlawfully restrained of his or her liberty at the present time. Ball v. Maxwell (1965), 1 Ohio St.2d 77, 78 ("To entitle one to relief by habeas corpus a determination of the action in petitioner's favor must effectuate a release from......