Bolus v. Engle

Ohio Supreme Court

Bolus v. Engle

355 N.E.2d 493, 48 Ohio St. 2d 3, 2 Ohio Op. 3d 2, 1976 Ohio LEXIS 693

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 6, 1976

DocketNo. 76-620

StatusPublished

This text of 355 N.E.2d 493 (Bolus v. Engle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bolus v. Engle, 355 N.E.2d 493, 48 Ohio St. 2d 3, 2 Ohio Op. 3d 2, 1976 Ohio LEXIS 693 (Ohio 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This cause is before this court pursuant to an appeal as of right from the dismissal of appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Appellant’s action is based upon a claimed denial of a speedy trial pursuant to R. C. 2945.71 et seg. The confinement from which appellant seeks release is the result of a .guilty plea entered by appellant while represented by counsel in the Court of Common Pleas.

This court affirms the dismissal by the Court of Appeals upon authority of In re Singer (1976), 45 Ohio St. 2d 130, and Mack v. Maxwell (1963), 174 Ohio St. 275. As was stated in Singer, at page 133, citing Mack, “* * * delay in the preliminary hearing or of the trial itself cannot •ordinarily be urged as a ground for relief in habeas corpus •after the accused has pleaded guilty or been convicted of the crime charged, since the delay no longer exists.” Appellant’s remedy was that of appeal from the judgment of •conviction.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is, therefore, affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

O’Neill, C. J., Herbert, Corrigan, Stern, Celebrezze, W. Brown and P. Brown, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

This cause is before this court pursuant to an appeal as of right from the dismissal of appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Appellant’s action is based upon a claimed denial of a speedy trial pursuant to R. C. 2945.71 et seg. The confinement from which appellant seeks release is the result of a .guilty plea entered by appellant while represented by counsel in the Court of Common Pleas.

This court affirms the dismissal by the Court of Appeals upon authority of In re Singer (1976), 45 Ohio St. 2d 130, and Mack v. Maxwell (1963), 174 Ohio St. 275. As was stated in Singer, at page 133, citing Mack, “* * * delay in the preliminary hearing or of the trial itself cannot •ordinarily be urged as a ground for relief in habeas corpus •after the accused has pleaded guilty or been convicted of the crime charged, since the delay no longer exists.” Appellant’s remedy was that of appeal from the judgment of •conviction.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is, therefore, affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

O’Neill, C. J., Herbert, Corrigan, Stern, Celebrezze, W. Brown and P. Brown, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

355 N.E.2d 493, 48 Ohio St. 2d 3, 2 Ohio Op. 3d 2, 1976 Ohio LEXIS 693, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bolus-v-engle-ohio-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack