Ohio Supreme Court, 1965

Sopko v. Maxwell

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided July 14, 1965 · Brown, Herbert, Matthias, Neill, Schneider, Taft, Zimmerman

3 Ohio St. 2d 123; 209 N.E.2d 201; 32 Ohio Op. 2d 99; 1965 Ohio LEXIS 461

Cases that cite this one

12 later published cases cite this decision.

State v. Anderson (Ohio Ct. App. 2019)
Christian v. Gansheimer (Ohio 2008)
State v. Wilson (Ohio Ct. App. 1995)
City of Cleveland v. Weaver (City of Cleveland Municipal Court 1983)
State v. DeVore (Ohio Ct. App. 2022)
State v. Donahue, Unpublished Decision (3-25-2005) (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)
State v. Kelso, Unpublished Decision (4-12-2005) (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)
State v. Henderson (Ohio 1990)
State v. Darga (Ohio Ct. App. 1985)
State v. Villagomez (Ohio Ct. App. 1974)
State v. Hawk, Unpublished Decision (3-1-2004) (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
State v. Cutcher (Ohio Ct. App. 1969)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

In this action, petitioner alleges that he is illegally detained because he was arrested without a warrant *124and without probable cause, that he was charged by a fraudulent affidavit, and that he was represented by incompetent counsel. Petitioner was represented at his preliminary hearing, arraignment and trial by counsel originally retained by him. During the proceedings, petitioner dismissed this counsel. However, inasmuch as petitioner was without funds, the court appointed the same attorney to represent him.

Even if an arrest is illegal, it does not affect the validity of a subsequent criminal proceeding based on a valid indictment. Frisbie, Warden, v. Collins (1952), 342 U. S. 519, 96 L. Ed. 541, 72 S. Ct. 509; Ker v. Illinois (1886), 119 U. S. 436, 30 L. Ed. 421, 7 S. Ct. 225; Caldwell v. Haskins, Supt., 176 Ohio St. 261; and Henderson v. Maxwell, Warden, 176 Ohio St. 187.

Petitioner urges that the officer executing the affidavit did not see the crime committed, and that, therefore, it was fraudulent. It is not necessary that the affidavit be executed by one who observed the commission of the offense. It is sufficient if such person has reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has committed the crime.

Finally, petitioner urges that his counsel was incompetent. He bases this on the fact that the attorney waived the preliminary hearing, failed to determine that the affidavit was fraudulent and failed to move for discharge under the provisions of Section 2937.21, Revised Code. These arguments are without merit. As shown above, the affidavit was valid, and waiver of preliminary hearing did not prejudice petitioner. Concerning petitioner’s contention that the attorney was incompetent for failure to move for discharge under Section 2937.21, Revised Code, this section relates only to continuances after the case has actually been set for trial. There was no continuance after petitioner’s trial was set.

Petitioner remanded to custody.

Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, O’Neill, Herbert, Schneider and Brown, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.