State ex rel. Daugherty v. Solicitor for Highland County

267 N.E.2d 431, 25 Ohio St. 2d 192
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided March 3, 1971·No. No. 70-722·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

It is clear from the exhibits that the proper authorities have been well aware of relator’s request that the charge against him be disposed of, either by trial or dismissal, and that no action has been taken thereon.

Where an inmate in a penal institution has made a diligent, good-faith effort to call to the attention of the proper authorities in another state that he desires a charge pending against him in that state disposed of, by trial or dismissal, he is entitled to have such request acted upon. The failure of the authorities to do so constitutes the denial of a speedy trial. Smith v. Hooey (1969), 393 U. S. 374.

The writ of mandamus is allowed ordering the Court of Common Pleas to dismiss the 1964 indictment against relator and to remove the detainer placed against him.

Writ allowed.

O’Neill, C. J., Schneider, HebbeRt, Duncan, Corrigan, Steen and Leach, JJ., concur.

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

State ex rel. Daugherty v. Solicitor for Highland County, 267 N.E.2d 431, 25 Ohio St. 2d 192 (Ohio 1971).

267 N.E.2d 431 (State ex rel. Daugherty v. Solicitor for Highland County) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Corn
2023 Ohio 1407 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2023)
State v. Moore
2014 Ohio 4879 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2014)
State v. Centafanti, 2007-Ca-00044 (8-6-2007)
2007 Ohio 4036 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2007)
State v. Antos, Unpublished Decision (2-1-2007)
2007 Ohio 415 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2007)
State v. Gill, Unpublished Decision (3-18-2004)
2004 Ohio 1245 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2004)
State v. Holt
615 N.E.2d 684 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1992)
State v. Ferguson
535 N.E.2d 708 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1987)