Treat v. Sacks

Ohio Supreme Court

Treat v. Sacks

172 Ohio St. (N.S.) 246

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided May 10, 1961·No. No. 36636·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

There is no showing or claim that petitioner made application to be discharged or brought to trial between the time of his indictment and trial. To entitle an accused to a discharge on the ground that he was not brought to trial during the time limited by statute, he must make application to the court therefor. State v. Cunningham, 171 Ohio St., 54.

Petitioner remanded to custody.

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Taet, Matthias, Bell, Radcliee and O’Neill, JJ., concur. Radcliee, J., of the Fourth Appellate District, sitting by designation in the place and stead of Herbert, J.

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

Per Curiam.

There is no showing or claim that petitioner made application to be discharged or brought to trial between the time of his indictment and trial. To entitle an accused to a discharge on the ground that he was not brought to trial during the time limited by statute, he must make application to the court therefor. State v. Cunningham, 171 Ohio St., 54.

Petitioner remanded to custody.

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Taet, Matthias, Bell, Radcliee and O’Neill, JJ., concur. Radcliee, J., of the Fourth Appellate District, sitting by designation in the place and stead of Herbert, J.

Treat v. Sacks, 172 Ohio St. (N.S.) 246 (Ohio 1961).

Pincite

172 Ohio St. (N.S.) 246 (Treat v. Sacks) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.