State ex rel. Brantley v. Anderson

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Brantley v. Anderson

674 N.E.2d 1380, 77 Ohio St. 3d 446

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 19, 1997

DocketNo. 96-1725

StatusPublished

Cited by20 cases

This text of 674 N.E.2d 1380 (State ex rel. Brantley v. Anderson) 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. Brantley v. Anderson, 674 N.E.2d 1380, 77 Ohio St. 3d 446 (Ohio 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The court of appeals correctly determined that an appeal rather than the extraordinary writ of habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy when challenging claimed violations of an accused’s right to a speedy trial. State ex rel. Dotson v. Rogers (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 25, 607 N.E.2d 453; Russell v. Tate (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 444, 444-445, 596 N.E.2d 1039, 1040.

In addition, Brantley’s petition was subject to dismissal because he failed to attach a copy of his alleged commitment. R.C. 2725.04(D); Adkins v. McFaul (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 350, 353, 667 N.E.2d 1171, 1174.

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