DeNiro v. Kellon, 68-652
| Decision Date | 21 May 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 68-652,68-652 |
| Citation | 18 Ohio St.2d 132,247 N.E.2d 755 |
| Parties | , 47 O.O.2d 286 DeNIRO v. KELLON, Supt., Hawthornden State Hospital. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Nicholas H. DeNiro, in pro. per.
Paul W. Brown, Atty. Gen., and James S. Rood, Columbus, for respondent.
Petitioner makes two distinct allegations in his petition: (1) That 'he is being denied his life, liberty, and property illegally, without just cause or due process of law by his present incarceration in the Hawthornden State Hospital'; and (2) that 'he is having inflicted upon his person unusual punishment by the orders' of respondent, the superintendent of Hawthornden State Hospital.
Inasmuch as it has been brought to the attention of this court by respondent that petitioner is presently confined in Hawthornden State Hospital pursuant to a lawful order of the Probate Court of Cuyahoga County, we find no basis for allowance of the writ under the first allegation contained in the petition. See In re Bartholomew, 88 Ohio St. 601, 105 N.E. 766.
Inasmuch as the second allegation represents merely the conclusion of the petitioner and does not specify facts upon which relief might be predicated we find no basis for allowance of the writ under the second allegation of the petition.
Therefore, the motion to dismiss is sustained.
Cause dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson v. McMillan
...Ross v. Court (1972), 30 Ohio St.2d 323, 285 N.E.2d 25; Freeman v. Maxwell (1965), 4 Ohio St.2d 4, 210 N.E.2d 885; Di Niro v. Kellon (1969), 18 Ohio St.2d 132, 247 N.E.2d 755. Respondent further contends that habeas corpus has never been used in Ohio as a remedy to review a person's custody......