From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Plummer v. State of Ohio

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Feb 15, 1952
195 F.2d 521 (6th Cir. 1952)

Opinion

No. 11417.

February 15, 1952.

W.A. Kiley, Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellant.

C. Wm. O'Neill, Thomas R. Lloyd, Columbus, Ohio, for appellee.

Before SIMONS, MARTIN and MILLER, Circuit Judges.


This appeal was heard upon the transcript of record, and upon the argument of counsel and upon briefs on behalf of the respective parties;

And it appearing that the appellant, Thomas Tecumseh Plummer, has not exhausted remedies available to him in the courts of the State of Ohio, 28 U.S. Code, § 2254; Darr v. Burford, 339 U.S. 200, 70 S.Ct. 587, 94 L.Ed. 761, and it being well settled that a writ of habeas corpus can not be used as a substitute for an appeal from a judgment of conviction in the State court, Tinsley v. Anderson, 171 U.S. 101, 106, 18 S.Ct. 805, 43 L.Ed. 91; U.S. ex rel. Kennedy v. Tyler, 269 U.S. 13, 19, 46 S.Ct. 1, 70 L.Ed. 138.

It Is Ordered that the judgment of the District Court denying appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus be and is affirmed.


Summaries of

Plummer v. State of Ohio

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Feb 15, 1952
195 F.2d 521 (6th Cir. 1952)
Case details for

Plummer v. State of Ohio

Case Details

Full title:PLUMMER v. STATE OF OHIO et al

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

Date published: Feb 15, 1952

Citations

195 F.2d 521 (6th Cir. 1952)

Citing Cases

Wooten v. Bomar

This has been determined many times in this Court. Long v. Benson, 6 Cir., 140 F.2d 195; McCrea v. Jackson, 6…

Dye v. Sacks

State v. Ross, 92 Ohio App. 29, 108 N.E.2d 77. It is not the function of a habeas corpus proceeding in the…