State ex rel. Brantley v. Anderson - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

1 The State ex rel. Brantley, Appellant, v. Anderson, Warden, Appellee.
2 [Cite as State ex rel. Brantley v. Anderson (1997), Ohio St.3d .]
3 Habeas corpus -- Appeal is proper remedy for alleged violations of
4
speedy trial right.
5
(No. 96-1725 -- Submitted January 7, 1997 -- Decided February 19, 1997.)
6 Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Richland County, No. 96 CA 49.
7
Appellant, Reverend Gregory Brantley, filed a petition for a writ of habeas
8 corpus in the Court of Appeals for Richland County, alleging that he was being
9 unlawfully restrained of his liberty by appellee, Carl Anderson, Warden of
10 Mansfield Correctional Institute. Brantley asserted that his sentencing court
11 lacked jurisdiction to try and convict him because it violated his right to a speedy
12 trial. The court of appeals dismissed the petition.
13
The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right.
14
____________________
15
Rev. Gregory Brantley, pro se.
16
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Donald Gary Keyser,
17 Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
18
____________________

1
Per Curiam. The court of appeals correctly determined that an appeal rather
2 than the extraordinary writ of habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy when
3 challenging claimed violations of an accused's right to a speedy trial. State ex rel.
4 Dotson v. Rogers (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 25, 607 N.E.2d 453; Russell v. Tate
5 (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 444, 444-445, 596 N.E.2d 1039, 1040.
6
In addition, Brantley's petition was subject to dismissal because he failed to
7 attach a copy of his alleged commitment. R.C. 2725.04(D); Adkins v. McFaul
8 (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 350, 353, 667 N.E.2d 1171, 1174.
9
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
10

Judgment affirmed.
11
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
12 LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
13

2