{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing an action for a writ of prohibition to prevent a common pleas court judge from proceeding with a second trial in a criminal case based on the appellant’s claim that his right to a speedy trial was violated in the original prosecution. Because the speedy-trial claim is not cognizable in an extraordinary-writ case, we affirm.

{¶ 2} In July 2003, appellant, Bruce A. Jackim, was indicted on one count of felonious assault of a police officer, one count of assault on a police officer, and one count of resisting arrest. Jackim subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the case based on a claimed violation of his right to a speedy trial. Following a jury trial, Jackim was convicted of assault of a police officer and resisting arrest and was sentenced to a six-month suspended jail sentence and one year of community control.

{¶ 3} On appeal, the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County reversed the judgment because the common pleas court had erred in granting a motion in limine excluding a surveillance videotape as well as reference to it at trial. State v. Jackim, Cuyahoga App. Nos. 87012 and 87400, 2006-Ohio-4756, 2006 WL 2639444. The court of appeals remanded the case for a new trial and ruled that Jackim’s other claims were rendered moot because of the court’s ruling. Id. at ¶ 21.

{¶ 4} On remand, Jackim again filed a motion to dismiss the case based upon a claimed violation of his right to a speedy trial.

{¶ 5} In December 2007, Jackim filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County for a writ of prohibition to prevent appellee, Judge Richard J. Ambrose of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, from proceeding with Jackim’s retrial because of the claimed speedy-trial violation.

{¶ 6} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. The claim that Jackim was denied his right to a speedy trial is not cognizable in an extraordinary-writ proceeding. State ex rel. Pesci v. Lucci, 115 Ohio St.3d 218, 2007-Ohio-4795, 874 N.E.2d 774, ¶ 6 (prohibition); State ex rel. Hamilton v. Brunner, 105 Ohio St.3d 304, 2004-Ohio-1735, 825 N.E.2d 607, ¶ 7 (mandamus); Tisdale v. Eberlin, 114 Ohio St.3d 201, 2007-Ohio-3833, 870 N.E.2d 1191, ¶ 7 (habeas corpus). He has an adequate remedy by way of appeal to raise this claim. Pesci, at ¶ 6. Appeal following final judgment is not rendered inadequate due to the potential time and *514expense involved. State ex rel. Abner v. Elliott (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 11, 17, 706 N.E.2d 765.

{¶ 7} We find no persuasive reason to depart from this well-settled precedent in this case.

Judgment affirmed.