Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Williams v. Brigano

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 14, 1997No. 96-2752PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Per curiam

Williams asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his habeas corpus petition. Williams’s assertion lacks merit for the following reasons.

First, a claimed denial of the right to a speedy trial is not cognizable in habeas corpus. State ex rel. Dotson v. Rogers (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 25, 607 N.E.2d 453. Instead, appeal is the appropriate remedy to raise this claim. Russell v. Tate (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 444, 444-445, 596 N.E.2d 1039, 1040.

Second, the speedy trial issue has been previously adjudicated on direct appeal, and res judicata bars Williams from relitigating the issue in a…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Dotson v. RogersOhio Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Russell v. TateOhio Supreme Court · 1992

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Tubbs Jones v. SusterOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  2. State ex rel. Tubbs Jones v. SusterOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  3. State ex rel. Jefferson v. Ohio Adult Parole AuthorityOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  4. State ex rel. Jefferson v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.Ohio Supreme Court · 1999
  5. State ex rel. Williams v. BriganoOhio Supreme Court · 1997

4 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