Kimberling v. Maxwell

Ohio Supreme Court

Kimberling v. Maxwell

175 Ohio St. (N.S.) 439

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 22, 1964

DocketNo. 38420

StatusPublished

This text of 175 Ohio St. (N.S.) 439 (Kimberling v. Maxwell) 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

Kimberling v. Maxwell, 175 Ohio St. (N.S.) 439 (Ohio 1964).

Pincite

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.

[440]*440However, 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.

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

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.

[440]*440However, 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 Ohio St. (N.S.) 439, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kimberling-v-maxwell-ohio-1964.