Ohio Supreme Court, 1978

State ex rel. Jones v. Court of Common Pleas

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided July 19, 1978 · Brown, Celebrezze, Herbert, Locher, Neux, Sweeney

55 Ohio St. 2d 130; 378 N.E.2d 471; 9 Ohio Op. 3d 108; 1978 Ohio LEXIS 628

Cases that cite this one

15 later published cases cite this decision.

Commonwealth v. Thomas (Pa. 2012)
State v. Crawford (Ohio Ct. App. 2024)
State v. Harris, 2007ca0059 (6-2-2008) (Ohio Ct. App. 2008)
State v. Centafanti, 2007-Ca-00044 (8-6-2007) (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)
State v. Moore, 07-Ca-19 (12-19-2007) (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)
State v. Parker (Ohio 2007)
State v. Dumas, Unpublished Decision (11-26-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
State v. Hiatt (Ohio Ct. App. 1997)
State v. Patton (Ohio Ct. App. 1996)
City of Brecksville v. Cook (Ohio 1996)
Brecksville v. Cook (Ohio 1996)
Sands v. Cunningham (District Court, D. New Hampshire 1985)
State v. Chambers (Ohio Ct. App. 2011)
State v. Hatton, Unpublished Decision (4-19-1999) (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
State v. Buck, Unpublished Decision (4-20-1999) (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)

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.

Relator asserts that the present delay in the Court of Common Pleas is violative of due process and equal protection and is severely prejudicial to him. However, relator is not languishing in jail, and the necessity for forced speed is not evident. While the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees a speedy trial, no such requirement attaches to proceedings subsequent to trial, primarily because the presumption of innocence at the trial level does not exist at the appellate or post-appellate levels. Speedy trial was originally guaranteed (1) to prevent oppressive pretrial incarceration; (2) to minimize anxiety of the accused (not the convicted); and (3) to limit the possibility that the defense will be unpaired.

These concerns are not compelling here. Relator has not demonstrated that his remedies at law are not adequate and hence mandamus will not lie.

Therefore, the writ of mandamus is denied.

Writ denied.

O’Neux, C. J., Herbert, Celebrezze, W. Brown, P. Brown, Sweeney and Locher, JJ., concur.

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