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

  1. In re SingerOhio Supreme Court · 1976

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Boles v. KnabOhio Supreme Court · 2011
  2. Russell v. TateOhio Supreme Court · 1992
  3. Gaston v. ReidOhio Court of Appeals · 2012
  4. In Re Harris, Unpublished Decision (8-24-1999)Ohio Court of Appeals · 1999
  5. Rollison v. StateOhio Court of Appeals · 1993

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

Powered by the Exa API