Opinion
No. 39047
Decided October 21, 1964.
Habeas corpus — Not substitute for appeal — Validity of sentence as habitual criminal — Validity of prior convictions must be raised by appeal.
IN HABEAS CORPUS.
This is an action in habeas corpus arising in this court. On June 22, 1961, the Grand Jury of Cuyahoga County returned an indictment charging petitioner, Frank Cook, as a habitual criminal. While represented by counsel, petitioner was tried to and found guilty by a jury as a habitual criminal. Petitioner's last prior sentences were vacated, and he was sentenced to the Ohio Penitentiary under this conviction.
Mr. Frank Cook, in propria persona. Mr. William B. Saxbe, attorney general, and Mr. William C. Baird, for respondent.
In this action in habeas corpus, petitioner is attacking the validity of his habitual-criminal conviction, on the ground that certain of his previous convictions upon which his habitual-criminal indictment was based were void. He bases this contention on lack of counsel, but the evidence shows that in at least four of his former convictions he was represented by counsel. The validity of prior convictions upon which a habitual-criminal indictment is based cannot be questioned in a collateral attack in a habeas corpus proceeding relating to the habitual-criminal sentence. The question of the validity of such prior convictions must be raised in the original hearing on the habitual-criminal indictment, and any claimed error in that hearing and a conviction under that indictment must be raised by appeal. Huth v. Maxwell, Warden, 176 Ohio St. 360; and Maloney v. Maxwell, Warden, 174 Ohio St. 84.
Petitioner remanded to custody.
TAFT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, MATTHIAS, O'NEILL, GRIFFITH, HERBERT and GIBSON, JJ., concur.