Case Title: State ex rel. Brantley v. Ghee

Citation: 1997-Ohio-116

Docket Number: 19970482

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1997-11-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
THE STATE EX REL. BRANTLEY, APPELLANT, V. GHEE, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Brantley v. Ghee (1997), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Habeas corpus — Alleged speedy trial violation not cognizable in habeas corpus 
— Commitment papers pertinent to claim must be attached to complaint — 
Writ available only if petitioner is entitled to immediate release from 
custody — Res judicata precludes filing of successive petitions. 
 
(No. 97-482 — Submitted October 7, 1997 — Decided November 19, 
1997.) 
 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Richland County, No. 97CA9. 
 
In January 1997, appellant, Gregory Brantley, an inmate at Mansfield 
Correctional Institution, filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals for Richland 
County for a writ of habeas corpus.  Brantley challenged actions by his sentencing 
court and the Adult Parole Authority (“APA”) in 1990 and 1991.  He claimed 
entitlement to habeas corpus relief because (1) his constitutional right to a speedy 
trial had been violated, (2) the APA lacked authority to revoke his parole because 
of an unreasonable delay in conducting his final parole revocation hearing, and (3) 
the APA failed to reduce his aggregate sentence.  The court of appeals denied the 
writ because Brantley’s speedy trial claim failed to invoke the court’s original 
jurisdiction in habeas corpus. 
 
This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right.  Brantley has 
also filed a motion to supplement the record. 
__________________ 
 
Gregory Brantley, pro se. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
Motion to Supplement Record 
 
2
 
Brantley initially requests that the court supplement the record on appeal 
with documents he has filed in the Court of Appeals for Franklin County.  
S.Ct.Prac.R. V(6) provides that in appeals to this court, “[i]f any part of the record 
is not transmitted to the Supreme Court but is necessary to the Supreme Court’s 
consideration of the questions presented on appeal, the Supreme Court, on its own 
initiative or upon stipulation of the parties or motion of a party, may direct that a 
supplemental record be certified and transmitted to the Clerk of the Supreme 
Court.”  The Franklin County records are not part of the applicable record here, 
see S.Ct.Prac.R. V(1), nor are they necessary to the court’s review of the merits of 
this appeal.  In addition, “ ‘[a] reviewing court cannot add matter to the record 
before it, which was not part of the trial court’s proceedings, and then decide the 
appeal on the basis of the new matter.’ ”  State ex rel. Fogle v. Steiner (1995), 74 
Ohio St.3d 158, 162, 656 N.E.2d 1288, 1293, quoting State v. Ishmail (1978), 54 
Ohio St.2d 402, 8 O.O.3d 405, 377 N.E.2d 500, paragraph one of the syllabus.  
Accordingly, we deny Brantley’s motion to supplement the record. 
Merits 
 
Brantley asserts in his two propositions of law that the court of appeals 
erred by denying the writ of habeas corpus.  The court of appeals, however, 
properly denied the writ for the following reasons. 
 
First, as the court of appeals properly concluded, Brantley’s claimed 
violation of his right to a speedy trial is not cognizable in habeas corpus.  State ex 
rel. Brantley v. Anderson (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 446, 674 N.E.2d 1380.  Second, 
Brantley did not attach commitment papers pertinent to his claim challenging the 
APA’s revocation of his parole.  Brown v. Rogers (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 339, 341, 
650 N.E.2d 422, 423.  Third, Brantley was not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus 
on his sentence-reduction claim because he did not contend that he was thereby 
 
3
entitled to release from prison.  Swiger v. Seidner (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 685, 687, 
660 N.E.2d 1214, 1216 (habeas corpus lies only if the petitioner is entitled to 
immediate release from custody).  Finally, res judicata precluded Brantley’s filing 
of successive habeas corpus petitions.  See State ex rel. Richard v. Seidner (1996), 
77 Ohio St.3d 68, 671 N.E.2d 28; Brantley, supra. 
 
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.