State ex rel. Arnold v. Reid

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Arnold v. Reid

707 N.E.2d 492, 85 Ohio St. 3d 147

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 31, 1999

DocketNo. 98-2468

StatusPublished

This text of 707 N.E.2d 492 (State ex rel. Arnold v. Reid) 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

State ex rel. Arnold v. Reid, 707 N.E.2d 492, 85 Ohio St. 3d 147 (Ohio 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Arnold asserts in his sole proposition of law that the court of appeals erred by dismissing his mandamus action. Arnold’s assertion is merit-less.

Arnold had an adequate legal remedy by appeal to raise his claim concerning the trial court’s alleged failure to journalize decisions relating to the speedy-trial provisions. See State v. King (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 158, 162, 637 N.E.2d 903, 906; State v. Mincy (1982), 2 Ohio St.3d 6, 2 OBR 282, 441 N.E.2d 571, syllabus. Unlike State ex rel. Grove v. Nadel (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 325, 691 N.E.2d 275, appellees’ alleged failure to journalize these entries did not preclude an appeal raising this issue.

In addition, appeal and postconviction relief are not rendered inadequate by the fact that Arnold can no longer raise this issue on appeal or claim ineffective assistance of counsel in a postconviction relief petition for failing to raise this issue in his direct appeal. Cf. In re Estate of Davis (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 45, 46, 671 N.E.2d 9, 10.

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

Per Curiam.

Arnold asserts in his sole proposition of law that the court of appeals erred by dismissing his mandamus action. Arnold’s assertion is merit-less.

Arnold had an adequate legal remedy by appeal to raise his claim concerning the trial court’s alleged failure to journalize decisions relating to the speedy-trial provisions. See State v. King (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 158, 162, 637 N.E.2d 903, 906; State v. Mincy (1982), 2 Ohio St.3d 6, 2 OBR 282, 441 N.E.2d 571, syllabus. Unlike State ex rel. Grove v. Nadel (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 325, 691 N.E.2d 275, appellees’ alleged failure to journalize these entries did not preclude an appeal raising this issue.

In addition, appeal and postconviction relief are not rendered inadequate by the fact that Arnold can no longer raise this issue on appeal or claim ineffective assistance of counsel in a postconviction relief petition for failing to raise this issue in his direct appeal. Cf. In re Estate of Davis (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 45, 46, 671 N.E.2d 9, 10.

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)

707 N.E.2d 492, 85 Ohio St. 3d 147, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-arnold-v-reid-ohio-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack