Freeman v. Maxwell
| Decision Date | 06 October 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 39433,39433 |
| Parties | , 33 O.O.2d 2 FREEMAN v. MAXWELL, Warden. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
This action in habeas corpus was instituted in this court prior to the effective date of Sections 2953.21 to 2953.24, inclusive, Revised Code, provising a remedy after conviction for a claimed denial or infringement of rights that would make a judgment void or voidable under the Ohio Constitution or the Constitution of the United States.
Jerome B. Freeman, in pro. per.
William B. Saxbe, Atty. Gen., and William C. Baird, Columbus, for respondent.
The questions to be determined are:
(1) Whether the existence of the remedies provided by those statutes should prevent providing such remedies in an action in habeas corpus; and
(2) If so, whether such effect should be given to those statutes in habeas corpus actions that were pending and undisposed of on the effective date of those statutes.
Until recently, this court held that relief should not be given to a prisoner in habeas corpus where it appeared that the prisoner was being held pursuant to a judgment of conviction of a court of record which had jurisdiction to render that judgment. Exparte Van Hagan, 25 Ohio St. 426; Burns v. Tarbox, Sheriff, 76 Ohio St. 520, 81 N.E. 761; In re Burson, 152 Ohio St. 375, 89 N.E.2d 651.
Section 2725.05, Revised Code, which is declaratory of the common law in this state, reads as follows:
In recent years, decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States have permitted prisoners to collaterally attack their judgments of conviction. See Linkletter v. Walker, Warden (1965), 381 U.S. 618, 85 S.Ct. 1731, 14 L.Ed.2d 601. The Supreme Court of the United States has suggested that a state must permit such a collateral attack on a judgment of conviction where such judgment was based on a denial of the prisoner's rights under the Constitution of the United States. See Case v. State of Nebraska (1965), 381 U.S. 336, 85 S.Ct. 1486, 14 L.Ed.2d 422.
Because there was no other adequate means of collaterally attacking such a judgment of conviction, this court has recently been permitting such attacks in habeas corpus proceedings. The only reason for permitting this extension of the right to relief in habeas corpus was that there was no other adequate remedy available in the ordinary course of the law to assert and establish that the judgment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keener v. Ridenour
...may collaterally attack his conviction in State court. Noble v. McMaken, 45 Ohio St.2d 236, 344 N.E.2d 129 (1976); Freeman v. Maxwell, 4 Ohio St.2d 4, 210 N.E.2d 885 (1965), Cert. denied, 382 U.S. 1017, 86 S.Ct. 634, 15 L.Ed.2d 532 (1966). For a complete discussion of the history of § 2953.......
-
State v. Lawrence Alfred Landrum
... ... void or voidable under the United States or the Ohio ... Constitution. Freeman v. Maxwell, Warden (1965), 4 ... Ohio St.2d 4, 210 N.E.2d 885. R.C. 2953.21 provides that any ... person convicted of a criminal offense ... ...
-
State v. Wiles
...into immediate effect." Am.Sub.S.B. No. 383, Section 2, 131 Ohio Laws 1610, 1611. In October 1965, the Ohio Supreme Court held in Freeman v. Maxwell, supra, that the new statutory procedure for postconviction relief constitutes an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law so that the ex......
-
Knox v. Maxwell
...defect in the process, judgment, or order." This statutory framework is declarative of the common law of Ohio. Freeman v. Maxwell, Warden, 4 Ohio St.2d 4, 210 N.E.2d 885 (1965), cert. denied 382 U.S. 1017, 86 S.Ct. 634, 15 L.Ed.2d 532. Since the statute is coextensive with the common law po......