Prather v. Brigano

Ohio Supreme Court

Prather v. Brigano

1999 Ohio 212, 86 Ohio St. 3d 609

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 29, 1999

Docket1999-0539

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 1999 Ohio 212 (Prather v. Brigano) 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

Prather v. Brigano, 1999 Ohio 212, 86 Ohio St. 3d 609 (Ohio 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 86 Ohio St.3d 609.]

PRATHER, APPELLANT, v. BRIGANO, WARDEN, APPELLEE. [Cite as Prather v. Brigano, 1999-Ohio-212.] Habeas corpus to compel relator’s immediate release from Warren Correctional Institution—Dismissal of writ affirmed, when—Speedy-trial claim not cognizable in habeas corpus. (No. 99-539—Submitted August 25, 1999—Decided September 29, 1999.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Warren County, No. CA99-01-009. __________________ {¶ 1} In January 1999, appellant, Gregory L. Prather, filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Warren County for a writ of habeas corpus to compel appellee, Warden Anthony Brigano of the Warren Correctional Institution, to immediately release him from prison. Prather claimed that he was entitled to the writ because his trial court failed to comply with the statutory speedy-trial requirements. Prather did not attach a copy of his commitment papers to his petition. The court of appeals granted Brigano’s Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion and dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. {¶ 2} This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right. __________________ Gregory L. Prather, pro se. Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and D.J. Hildebrandt, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. __________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 3} The court of appeals did not err in dismissing Prather’s habeas corpus petition. Prather’s speedy-trial claim is not cognizable in habeas corpus. State ex rel. Brantley v. Ghee (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 287, 288, 685 N.E.2d 1243, 1244. In SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

addition, Prather did not attach his commitment papers to his petition. Tucker v. McAninch (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 423, 696 N.E.2d 595, 596. Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 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 609.]

PRATHER, APPELLANT, v. BRIGANO, WARDEN, APPELLEE. [Cite as Prather v. Brigano, 1999-Ohio-212.] Habeas corpus to compel relator’s immediate release from Warren Correctional Institution—Dismissal of writ affirmed, when—Speedy-trial claim not cognizable in habeas corpus. (No. 99-539—Submitted August 25, 1999—Decided September 29, 1999.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Warren County, No. CA99-01-009. __________________ {¶ 1} In January 1999, appellant, Gregory L. Prather, filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Warren County for a writ of habeas corpus to compel appellee, Warden Anthony Brigano of the Warren Correctional Institution, to immediately release him from prison. Prather claimed that he was entitled to the writ because his trial court failed to comply with the statutory speedy-trial requirements. Prather did not attach a copy of his commitment papers to his petition. The court of appeals granted Brigano’s Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion and dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. {¶ 2} This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right. __________________ Gregory L. Prather, pro se. Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and D.J. Hildebrandt, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. __________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 3} The court of appeals did not err in dismissing Prather’s habeas corpus petition. Prather’s speedy-trial claim is not cognizable in habeas corpus. State ex rel. Brantley v. Ghee (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 287, 288, 685 N.E.2d 1243, 1244. In SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

addition, Prather did not attach his commitment papers to his petition. Tucker v. McAninch (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 423, 696 N.E.2d 595, 596. Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 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 212, 86 Ohio St. 3d 609, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prather-v-brigano-ohio-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack