Russell v. Tate

Ohio Supreme Court
Russell v. Tate, 64 Ohio St. 3d 444 (Ohio 1992)
596 N.E.2d 1039; 1992 Ohio LEXIS 1871
Brown, Douglas, Holmes, Moyer, Resnick, Sweeney, Wright

Russell v. Tate

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

We affirm the decision of the court of appeals. An appeal rather than a writ of habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy when challeng*445ing violations of the right to a speedy trial. In re Jackson (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 189, 522 N.E.2d 540.

Moreover, the issue of a violation of appellant’s right to a speedy trial has been previously adjudicated on direct appeal to the Eleventh District Court of Appeals. That court denied appellant’s claim and, therefore, the issue is clearly res judicata. Burch v. Morris (1986), 25 Ohio St.3d 18, 25 OBR 15, 494 N.E.2d 1137.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, Wright, H. Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur.

Reference

Full Case Name
Russell v. Tate, Warden
Cited By
13 cases
Status
Published