Brown v. Leonard

Ohio Supreme Court

Brown v. Leonard

1999 Ohio 214, 86 Ohio St. 3d 593

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 29, 1999

Docket1999-0916

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1999 Ohio 214 (Brown v. Leonard) 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

Brown v. Leonard, 1999 Ohio 214, 86 Ohio St. 3d 593 (Ohio 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 86 Ohio St.3d 593.]

BROWN, APPELLANT, v. LEONARD, WARDEN, APPELLEE. [Cite as Brown v. Leonard, 1999-Ohio-214.] Habeas corpus sought to effect relator’s immediate release from prison—Dismissal of petition affirmed. (No. 99-916—Submitted August 25, 1999—Decided September 29, 1999.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Allen County, No. 1-99-20. __________________ {¶ 1} In March 1999, appellant, Lawrence Brown, filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Allen County for a writ of habeas corpus to compel his immediate release from prison. Brown claimed that he was entitled to the writ because at his criminal trial, he had been denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial and his trial court had erroneously enhanced his sentence by use of an improper specification. The court of appeals dismissed Brown’s petition. {¶ 2} This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right. __________________ Lawrence Brown, pro se. Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Michele M. Schoeppe, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. __________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 3} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals for the reasons stated in its opinion. Neither a claimed violation of the right to a speedy trial nor a mere sentencing error is cognizable in habeas corpus. Russell v. Mitchell (1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 328, 329, 703 N.E.2d 1249, 1249-1250; Heddleston v. Mack (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 213, 702 N.E.2d 1198. Further, Brown waived the additional claims he raises in this appeal, e.g., ineffective assistance of counsel, by failing to raise them below, SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

and such claims are also not cognizable in habeas corpus. State ex rel. Porter v. Cleveland Dept. of Pub. Safety (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 258, 259, 703 N.E.2d 308, 309; Thomas v. Huffman (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 266, 267, 703 N.E.2d 315, 315-316. Judgment affirmed. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. __________________

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

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 86 Ohio St.3d 593.]

BROWN, APPELLANT, v. LEONARD, WARDEN, APPELLEE. [Cite as Brown v. Leonard, 1999-Ohio-214.] Habeas corpus sought to effect relator’s immediate release from prison—Dismissal of petition affirmed. (No. 99-916—Submitted August 25, 1999—Decided September 29, 1999.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Allen County, No. 1-99-20. __________________ {¶ 1} In March 1999, appellant, Lawrence Brown, filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Allen County for a writ of habeas corpus to compel his immediate release from prison. Brown claimed that he was entitled to the writ because at his criminal trial, he had been denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial and his trial court had erroneously enhanced his sentence by use of an improper specification. The court of appeals dismissed Brown’s petition. {¶ 2} This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right. __________________ Lawrence Brown, pro se. Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Michele M. Schoeppe, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. __________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 3} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals for the reasons stated in its opinion. Neither a claimed violation of the right to a speedy trial nor a mere sentencing error is cognizable in habeas corpus. Russell v. Mitchell (1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 328, 329, 703 N.E.2d 1249, 1249-1250; Heddleston v. Mack (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 213, 702 N.E.2d 1198. Further, Brown waived the additional claims he raises in this appeal, e.g., ineffective assistance of counsel, by failing to raise them below, SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

and such claims are also not cognizable in habeas corpus. State ex rel. Porter v. Cleveland Dept. of Pub. Safety (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 258, 259, 703 N.E.2d 308, 309; Thomas v. Huffman (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 266, 267, 703 N.E.2d 315, 315-316. Judgment affirmed. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. __________________

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1999 Ohio 214, 86 Ohio St. 3d 593, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-leonard-ohio-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack