Kimberling v. Maxwell

175 Ohio St. (N.S.) 439

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The basic contention of petitioner is that he was denied a speedy trial for the crime charged in the new indictment, because six years elapsed between the time he entered a plea of guilty to his original indictment and the return of the new indictment.

However, at the trial on the new indictment, petitioner could have urged the defense of denial of a speedy trial. He failed to raise such question but instead entered a plea of guilty. By such conduct he waived any right or defense he had in relation to a denial of a speedy trial. Partsch v. Haskins, Supt., 175 Ohio St., 139; and 57 A. L. R. (2d), 343.

Petitioner remanded to custody.

Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, O’Neill, Griffith, Herbert and Gibson, JJ., concur.