Ohio Supreme Court, 1997

State ex rel. Brantley v. Ghee

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided November 19, 1997 · Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney

80 Ohio St. 3d 287; 685 N.E.2d 1243

Cases that cite this one

45 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

State ex rel. Ogletree v. Bradshaw (Ohio Ct. App. 2013)
Smith v. Money, Unpublished Decision (6-25-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
State v. Cornick (Ohio Ct. App. 2014)
Clarke v. McFaul, 89436 (4-5-2007) (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)
Hopkins v. State, 89647 (4-16-2007) (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)
Norris v. Wilson, Unpublished Decision (8-24-2005) (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)
Moore v. Kochevar, Unpublished Decision (5-25-2004) (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
Palmer v. Rose, Unpublished Decision (3-10-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
Smith v. Pavicic, Unpublished Decision (3-19-2001) (Ohio Ct. App. 2001)
Palmer v. State, Unpublished Decision (11-20-2001) (Ohio Ct. App. 2001)
State ex rel. Childs v. Lazaroff (Ohio 2001)
State Ex Rel. Fryerson v. McFaul, Unpublished Decision (6-1-2000) (Ohio Ct. App. 2000)
Russell v. Mitchell (Ohio 1999)
State ex rel. Gilmore v. Mitchell (Ohio 1999)
Prather v. Brigano (Ohio 1999)
Prather v. Brigano (Ohio 1999)
State ex rel. Gilmore v. Mitchell (Ohio 1999)
Barnett v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority (Ohio 1998)
McAuley v. Smith (Ohio 1998)
State ex rel. Cotton v. Ghee (Ohio 1998)
Tucker v. McAninch (Ohio 1998)
Childers v. Wingard (Ohio 1998)
Smith v. Walker (Ohio 1998)
Smith v. Walker (Ohio 1998)
Childers v. Wingard (Ohio 1998)

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.

Motion to Supplement Record

Brantley initially requests that the court supplement the record on appeal with documents he has filed in the Court of Appeals for Franklin County. S.Ct. Prac.R. V(6) provides that in appeals to this court, “[i]f any part of the record is not transmitted to the Supreme Court but is necessary to the Supreme Court’s consideration of the questions presented on appeal, the Supreme Court, on its own initiative or upon stipulation of the parties or motion of a party, may direct that a supplemental record be certified and transmitted to the Clerk of the Supreme Court.” The Franklin County records are not part of the applicable record here, see S.Ct.Prac.R. V(l), nor are they necessary to the court’s review of *288the merits of this appeal. In addition, “ ‘[a] reviewing court cannot add matter to the record before it, which was not part of the trial court’s proceedings, and then decide the appeal on the basis of the new matter.’ ” State ex rel. Fogle v. Steiner (1995) , 74 Ohio St.3d 158, 162, 656 N.E.2d 1288, 1293, quoting State v. Ishmail (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 402, 8 O.O.3d 405, 377 N.E.2d 500, paragraph one of the syllabus. Accordingly, we deny Brantley’s motion to supplement the record.

Merits

Brantley asserts in his two propositions of law that the court of appeals erred by denying the writ of habeas corpus. The court of appeals, however, properly denied the writ for the following reasons.

First, as the court of appeals properly concluded, Brantley’s claimed violation of his right to a speedy trial is not cognizable in habeas corpus. State ex rel. Brantley v. Anderson (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 446, 674 N.E.2d 1380. Second, Brantley did not attach commitment papers pertinent to his claim challenging the APA’s revocation of his parole. Brown v. Rogers (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 339, 341, 650 N.E.2d 422, 423. Third, Brantley was not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus on his sentence-reduction claim because he did not contend that he was thereby entitled to release from prison. Swiger v. Seidner (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 685, 687, 660 N.E.2d 1214, 1216 (habeas corpus lies only if the petitioner is entitled to immediate release from custody). Finally, res judicata precluded Brantley’s filing of successive habeas corpus petitions. See State ex rel. Richard v. Seidner (1996) , 77 Ohio St.3d 68, 671 N.E.2d 28; Brantley, supra.

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

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