McConnaughy v. Doe, 37973
| Decision Date | 15 May 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 37973,37973 |
| Citation | 23 O.O.2d 178,174 Ohio St. 533,190 N.E.2d 576 |
| Parties | , 23 O.O.2d 178 McCONNAUGHY v. DOE, Supt., London Correctional Institution (Maxwell, Warden, Substituted Respondent). |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Tom Reed, Waverly, for petitioner.
William B. Saxbe, Atty. Gen., and John Cianflona, Columbus, for respondent.
Petitioner at the present time is confined in the penitentiary under both his sentence for rape in Belmont County and the sentences imposed under his later convictions in Summit County. In the present action, petitioner is attacking only the sentence imposed by the court in Belmont County. Basically, it is his contention that the Belmont County indictment was void on the ground that it merely stated he raped one Rosemary Davey, without stating that Rosemary Davey was a female person. However, in the present action, we do not reach the merits of petitioner's contention.
An action of habeas corpus reaches only the validity of the present confinement. If a prisoner would not be entitled to an immediate release upon a successful determination of the action in his favor, habeas corpus does not lie. Errors which do not entitle him to release must be urged by appeal.
Thus, where one is in custody under sentences for multiple convictions for different crimes, any one of which, if valid, would warrant his present detention, errors relating to only one or less than all such convictions must be raised by appeal and not by habeas corpus.
So long as a person is lawfully in custody for any reason, habeas corpus is not available to test the validity of other convictions. Page v. Green, Supt., 174 Ohio St. 178 N.E.2d 592.
In the present case, petitioner being confined under convictions for several different crimes and attacking the validity of only one of such convictions, it must be presumed he is lawfully in custody under his other sentences and is not entitled to relief by habeas corpus.
Petitioner remanded to custody.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Thomas
...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 explicable on the ground of judicial For a time after this court's decisi......
-
Watson v. Wolfe, 2006 Ohio 5304 (Ohio App. 10/4/2006), 06 NO 333.
...relief is only available when the petitioner is entitled to immediate release from present confinement. McConnaughy v. Doe (1963), 174 Ohio St., 533, 534, 23 O.O.2d 178, 190 N.E.2d 576. The writ must be denied where the inmate is not challenging the jurisdiction of the sentencing court. Id.......
-
State v. Hertel, Case No. 18 CAA 07 0049
...not available to test the validity of other convictions. Page v. Green, Supt., 174 Ohio St. 178 N.E.2d 592." McConnaughy v. Doe, 174 Ohio St. 533, 534, 190 N.E.2d 576, 577 (1963). Since appellant is serving a lawful sentence in Arizona, he may not attack the conviction in this case by means......
-
State v. Goist, 2002-T-0136.
...Carolina, the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas has no jurisdiction over his person and no power to issue the writ. McConnaughy v. Doe (1963), 174 Ohio St. 533, 534 ("[a]n action of habeas corpus reaches only the validity of the present {¶26} Moreover, appellant's petition for habeas re......