Case ID: ohio-st-3d_64/html/0444-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Russell, Appellant, v. Tate, Warden, Appellee.
    [Cite as Russell v. Tate (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 444.]
    (No. 91-1829
    Submitted May 12, 1992
    Decided August 26, 1992.)
    
      Victor J. Russell, pro se.
    
    
      Lee I. Fisher, Attorney General, and Jutta E. Martin, for appellee.
   Per Curiam.

We affirm the decision of the court of appeals. An appeal rather than a writ of habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy when challenging violations of the right to a speedy trial. In re Jackson (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 189, 522 N.E.2d 540.

Moreover, the issue of a violation of appellant’s right to a speedy trial has been previously adjudicated on direct appeal to the Eleventh District Court of Appeals. That court denied appellant’s claim and, therefore, the issue is clearly res judicata. Burch v. Morris (1986), 25 Ohio St.3d 18, 25 OBR 15, 494 N.E.2d 1137.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, Wright, H. Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur.