Rollison v. State

Ohio Court of Appeals

Rollison v. State

622 N.E.2d 688, 87 Ohio App. 3d 496, 1993 Ohio App. LEXIS 3621

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 8, 1993

DocketNo. E-93-37.

StatusPublished

This text of 622 N.E.2d 688 (Rollison v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rollison v. State, 622 N.E.2d 688, 87 Ohio App. 3d 496, 1993 Ohio App. LEXIS 3621 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

*497 Per Curiam.

This matter is before the court on relator Timothy L. Rollison’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Relator contends his right to a speedy trial has been violated.

The Ohio Supreme Court has held that an appeal rather than a writ of habeas corpus is the proper remedy to challenge alleged violations of the right to a speedy trial. In re Singer (1976), 45 Ohio St.2d 130, 74 O.O.2d 253, 341 N.E.2d 849, In re Jackson (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 189, 522 N.E.2d 540. As we are bound by these Supreme Court rulings, the relief demanded by petitioner is hereby denied. However, we invite the Ohio Supreme Court to revisit this issue as we question the use of appeals in remedying an accused’s possible unconstitutional incarceration.

Relief denied.

Handwork, Melvin L. Resnick and Sherck, JJ., concur.

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

*497 Per Curiam.

This matter is before the court on relator Timothy L. Rollison’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Relator contends his right to a speedy trial has been violated.

The Ohio Supreme Court has held that an appeal rather than a writ of habeas corpus is the proper remedy to challenge alleged violations of the right to a speedy trial. In re Singer (1976), 45 Ohio St.2d 130, 74 O.O.2d 253, 341 N.E.2d 849, In re Jackson (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 189, 522 N.E.2d 540. As we are bound by these Supreme Court rulings, the relief demanded by petitioner is hereby denied. However, we invite the Ohio Supreme Court to revisit this issue as we question the use of appeals in remedying an accused’s possible unconstitutional incarceration.

Relief denied.

Handwork, Melvin L. Resnick and Sherck, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

622 N.E.2d 688, 87 Ohio App. 3d 496, 1993 Ohio App. LEXIS 3621, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rollison-v-state-ohioctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack