Travis v. Bagley

Ohio Supreme Court

Travis v. Bagley

2001 Ohio 198, 92 Ohio St. 3d 322

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 18, 2001

Docket2001-0367

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2001 Ohio 198 (Travis v. Bagley) 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

Travis v. Bagley, 2001 Ohio 198, 92 Ohio St. 3d 322 (Ohio 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 92 Ohio St.3d 322.]

TRAVIS, APPELLANT, v. BAGLEY, WARDEN, APPELLEE. [Cite as Travis v. Bagley, 2001-Ohio-198.] Habeas corpus sought to compel relator’s release from prison—Dismissal of petition affirmed—Claimed violation of a criminal defendant’s right to a speedy trial is not cognizable in habeas corpus—Appeal is proper remedy for alleged violation of speedy trial right. (No. 01-367—Submitted June 20, 2001—Decided July 18, 2001.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Richland County, No. 00-CA-102. __________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} In 1988, appellant, Bernard W. Travis, was convicted of kidnapping, rape, attempted rape, felonious assault, and gross sexual imposition, and he was sentenced to prison. On appeal, his convictions were affirmed. State v. Travis (Apr. 16, 1990), Cuyahoga App. No. 56825, unreported, 1990 WL 40573. {¶ 2} In December 2000, Travis filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Richland County for a writ of habeas corpus to compel his release from prison. Travis claimed that his trial court had denied him his constitutional right to a speedy trial. In January 2001, the court of appeals dismissed the petition. {¶ 3} This cause is now before the court upon Travis’s appeal as of right. {¶ 4} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals for the reasons stated in its opinion. A claimed violation of a criminal defendant’s right to a speedy trial is not cognizable in habeas corpus. Brown v. Leonard (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 593, 716 N.E.2d 183; Mack v. Maxwell (1963), 174 Ohio St. 275, 22 O.O.2d 335, 189 N.E.2d 156. Instead, appeal is the appropriate remedy. State ex rel. Brantley v. Anderson (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 446, 674 N.E.2d 1380. Judgment affirmed. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. __________________ Bernard W. Travis, pro se. Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Mark J. Zemba, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. __________________

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

[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 92 Ohio St.3d 322.]

TRAVIS, APPELLANT, v. BAGLEY, WARDEN, APPELLEE. [Cite as Travis v. Bagley, 2001-Ohio-198.] Habeas corpus sought to compel relator’s release from prison—Dismissal of petition affirmed—Claimed violation of a criminal defendant’s right to a speedy trial is not cognizable in habeas corpus—Appeal is proper remedy for alleged violation of speedy trial right. (No. 01-367—Submitted June 20, 2001—Decided July 18, 2001.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Richland County, No. 00-CA-102. __________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} In 1988, appellant, Bernard W. Travis, was convicted of kidnapping, rape, attempted rape, felonious assault, and gross sexual imposition, and he was sentenced to prison. On appeal, his convictions were affirmed. State v. Travis (Apr. 16, 1990), Cuyahoga App. No. 56825, unreported, 1990 WL 40573. {¶ 2} In December 2000, Travis filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Richland County for a writ of habeas corpus to compel his release from prison. Travis claimed that his trial court had denied him his constitutional right to a speedy trial. In January 2001, the court of appeals dismissed the petition. {¶ 3} This cause is now before the court upon Travis’s appeal as of right. {¶ 4} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals for the reasons stated in its opinion. A claimed violation of a criminal defendant’s right to a speedy trial is not cognizable in habeas corpus. Brown v. Leonard (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 593, 716 N.E.2d 183; Mack v. Maxwell (1963), 174 Ohio St. 275, 22 O.O.2d 335, 189 N.E.2d 156. Instead, appeal is the appropriate remedy. State ex rel. Brantley v. Anderson (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 446, 674 N.E.2d 1380. Judgment affirmed. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. __________________ Bernard W. Travis, pro se. Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Mark J. Zemba, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. __________________

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2001 Ohio 198, 92 Ohio St. 3d 322, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/travis-v-bagley-ohio-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack