Legal Opinion

Brown v. Leonard

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided September 29, 1999No. 99-916PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Per curiam

We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals for the reasons stated in its opinion. Neither a claimed violation of the right to a speedy trial nor a mere sentencing error is cognizable in habeas corpus. Russell v. Mitchell (1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 328, 329, 703 N.E.2d 1249, 1249-1250; Heddleston v. Mack (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 213, 702 N.E.2d 1198. Further, Brown waived the additional claims he raises in this appeal, e.g., ineffective assistance of counsel, by failing to raise them below, and such claims are also not cognizable in habeas corpus. State ex rel. Porter v. Cleveland Dept. of Pub.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Heddleston v. MackOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  2. Russell v. MitchellOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  3. State ex rel. Porter v. Cleveland Department of Public SafetyOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  4. Thomas v. HuffmanOhio Supreme Court · 1998

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Kelley v. WilsonOhio Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Travis v. BagleyOhio Supreme Court · 2001
  3. Howard v. RandleOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  4. Taylor v. MitchellOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  5. Howard v. RandleOhio Supreme Court · 2002

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API