Legal Opinion
In re Jackson
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided April 27, 1988No. 87-2147PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Per curiam
Appellant argues that the delay involved in bringing him to trial denies his right to a speedy trial *190secured by the United States and Ohio Constitutions and R.C. 2945.71 through 2945.73, and entitles him to discharge pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus. We disagree.
R.C. 2945.71 provides in part:
“(C) A person against whom a charge of felony is pending:
U * * *
“(2) Shall be brought to trial within two hundred seventy days after his arrest.
U * * *
“(E) For purposes of computing time under * * * [division] (C)(2) * * * of this section, each day during which the accused is held in jail in lieu of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- In re SingerOhio Supreme Court · 1976
3Cited by5 opinions
- Boles v. KnabOhio Supreme Court · 2011
- Russell v. TateOhio Supreme Court · 1992
- Gaston v. ReidOhio Court of Appeals · 2012
- In Re Harris, Unpublished Decision (8-24-1999)Ohio Court of Appeals · 1999
- Rollison v. StateOhio Court of Appeals · 1993