State ex rel. Brantley v. Ghee - 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

THE STATE EX REL. BRANTLEY, APPELLANT, V. GHEE, APPELLEE.
[Cite as State ex rel. Brantley v. Ghee (1997), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.]
Habeas corpus -- Alleged speedy trial violation not cognizable in habeas corpus
-- Commitment papers pertinent to claim must be attached to complaint --
Writ available only if petitioner is entitled to immediate release from
custody -- Res judicata precludes filing of successive petitions.

(No. 97-482 -- Submitted October 7, 1997 -- Decided November 19,
1997.)

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Richland County, No. 97CA9.

In January 1997, appellant, Gregory Brantley, an inmate at Mansfield
Correctional Institution, filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals for Richland
County for a writ of habeas corpus. Brantley challenged actions by his sentencing
court and the Adult Parole Authority ("APA") in 1990 and 1991. He claimed
entitlement to habeas corpus relief because (1) his constitutional right to a speedy
trial had been violated, (2) the APA lacked authority to revoke his parole because
of an unreasonable delay in conducting his final parole revocation hearing, and (3)
the APA failed to reduce his aggregate sentence. The court of appeals denied the
writ because Brantley's speedy trial claim failed to invoke the court's original
jurisdiction in habeas corpus.

This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right. Brantley has
also filed a motion to supplement the record.
__________________

Gregory Brantley, pro se.
__________________
Per
Curiam.
Motion to Supplement Record

Brantley initially requests that the court supplement the record on appeal
with documents he has filed in the Court of Appeals for Franklin County.
S.Ct.Prac.R. V(6) provides that in appeals to this court, "[i]f any part of the record
is not transmitted to the Supreme Court but is necessary to the Supreme Court's
consideration of the questions presented on appeal, the Supreme Court, on its own
initiative or upon stipulation of the parties or motion of a party, may direct that a
supplemental record be certified and transmitted to the Clerk of the Supreme
Court." The Franklin County records are not part of the applicable record here,
see S.Ct.Prac.R. V(1), nor are they necessary to the court's review of the merits of
this appeal. In addition, " `[a] reviewing court cannot add matter to the record
before it, which was not part of the trial court's proceedings, and then decide the
appeal on the basis of the new matter.' " State ex rel. Fogle v. Steiner (1995), 74
Ohio St.3d 158, 162, 656 N.E.2d 1288, 1293, quoting State v. Ishmail (1978), 54
Ohio St.2d 402, 8 O.O.3d 405, 377 N.E.2d 500, paragraph one of the syllabus.
Accordingly, we deny Brantley's motion to supplement the record.
Merits

Brantley asserts in his two propositions of law that the court of appeals
erred by denying the writ of habeas corpus. The court of appeals, however,
properly denied the writ for the following reasons.

First, as the court of appeals properly concluded, Brantley's claimed
violation of his right to a speedy trial is not cognizable in habeas corpus. State ex
rel. Brantley v. Anderson (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 446, 674 N.E.2d 1380. Second,
Brantley did not attach commitment papers pertinent to his claim challenging the
APA's revocation of his parole. Brown v. Rogers (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 339, 341,
650 N.E.2d 422, 423. Third, Brantley was not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus
on his sentence-reduction claim because he did not contend that he was thereby

2

entitled to release from prison. Swiger v. Seidner (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 685, 687,
660 N.E.2d 1214, 1216 (habeas corpus lies only if the petitioner is entitled to
immediate release from custody). Finally, res judicata precluded Brantley's filing
of successive habeas corpus petitions. See State ex rel. Richard v. Seidner (1996),
77 Ohio St.3d 68, 671 N.E.2d 28; Brantley, supra.

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.

3