Russell v. Tate

596 N.E.2d 1039, 64 Ohio St. 3d 444, 1992 Ohio LEXIS 1871
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided August 26, 1992·No. No. 91-1829·Published·Cited by 13 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We affirm the decision of the court of appeals. An appeal rather than a writ of habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy when challeng[445] ing violations of the right to a speedy trial. In re Jackson (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 189, 522 N.E.2d 540.

Moreover, the issue of a violation of appellant’s right to a speedy trial has been previously adjudicated on direct appeal to the Eleventh District Court of Appeals. That court denied appellant’s claim and, therefore, the issue is clearly res judicata. Burch v. Morris (1986), 25 Ohio St.3d 18, 25 OBR 15, 494 N.E.2d 1137.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, Wright, H. Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur.

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

Russell v. Tate, 596 N.E.2d 1039, 64 Ohio St. 3d 444, 1992 Ohio LEXIS 1871 (Ohio 1992).

596 N.E.2d 1039 (Russell v. Tate) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State Ex Rel. Jakim v. Ambrose, Unpublished Decision (1-9-2008)
2008 Ohio 45 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2008)
Pesci v. Jones, 89437 (5-9-2007)
2007 Ohio 2248 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2007)
Hopkins v. State, 89647 (4-16-2007)
2007 Ohio 1855 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2007)
State ex rel. Williams v. Brigano
1997 Ohio 210 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1997)
State ex rel. Brantley v. Anderson
1997 Ohio 11 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1997)
Russell v. Tate
600 N.E.2d 680 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1992)