Russell v. Tate

Ohio Supreme Court

Russell v. Tate

596 N.E.2d 1039, 64 Ohio St. 3d 444, 1992 Ohio LEXIS 1871

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 26, 1992

DocketNo. 91-1829

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 596 N.E.2d 1039 (Russell v. Tate) 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

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

Pincite

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]*445ing 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