{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition of appellant, David Hart, for a writ of habeas corpus. Hart’s speedy-trial claim is not cognizable in habeas corpus, and he had an adequate remedy by appeal from his sentencing entry to raise his claim. Tisdale v. Eberlin, 114 Ohio St.3d 201, 2007-Ohio-3833, 870 N.E.2d 1191, ¶ 7; Boles v. Knob, 130 Ohio St.3d 339, 2011-Ohio-5049, 958 N.E.2d 554, ¶ 1. Hart also waived the additional claims he raises on appeal — ineffective assistance of counsel and denial of his rights to due process and equal protection — because he failed to raise them in the court of appeals. State ex rel. Compton v. Sutula, 132 Ohio St.3d 35, 2012-Ohio-1653, 968 N.E.2d 476, ¶ 4. In addition, these claims are also not cognizable in habeas corpus, and Hart had an adequate remedy by appeal to raise them. See, e.g., Everett v. Eberlin, 114 Ohio St.3d 199, 2007-Ohio-3832, 870 N.E.2d 1190, ¶ 6 *480 (ineffective assistance of counsel); Austin v. Sacks, 172 Ohio St. 292, 175 N.E.2d 175 (1961) (due process).

Judgment affirmed.