Title: Boles v. Knab

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Boles v. Knab, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-5049.] 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
BOLES, APPELLANT, v. KNAB, WARDEN, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Boles v. Knab, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-5049.] 
Habeas corpus — Failure to state a viable claim — Adequate remedy at law 
available — Court of appeals’ dismissal of petition affirmed. 
(No. 2011-0808 — Submitted September 21, 2011 — Decided October 4, 2011.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Ross County, 
No. 11CA3201. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the 
petition of appellant, Shawn R. Boles, for a writ of habeas corpus.  Boles’s 
speedy-trial and double-jeopardy claims under R.C. 2945.73(D) are not 
cognizable in habeas corpus.  See Tisdale v. Eberlin, 114 Ohio St.3d 201, 2007-
Ohio-3833, 870 N.E.2d 1191, ¶ 7 (“a claimed violation of a right to a speedy trial 
is not cognizable in habeas corpus”); Smith v. Voorhies, 119 Ohio St.3d 345, 
2008-Ohio-4479, 894 N.E.2d 44, ¶ 9 (“res judicata is not an appropriate basis for 
extraordinary relief”).  “An appeal rather than a writ of habeas corpus is the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
proper remedy to challenge alleged violations of the right to a speedy trial.”  In re 
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus for Jackson (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 189, 190, 
522 N.E.2d 540 (affirming judgment denying writ of habeas corpus based on 
claimed violation of right to speedy trial under R.C. 2945.71 through 2945.73 and 
the United States and Ohio Constitutions).  Appeal is also the appropriate remedy 
to raise a claimed violation of double jeopardy.  Smith at ¶ 9. 
{¶ 2} Dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for failure to state a claim was 
warranted  because after all factual allegations of Boles’s petition were presumed 
to be true and all reasonable inferences therefrom were made in his favor, it 
appeared beyond doubt that he was not entitled to the requested extraordinary 
relief in habeas corpus.  No further inquiry into the legality of his detention was 
necessary.  And insofar as Boles claims that the court of appeals’ judgment that 
he is appealing from does not constitute a final, appealable order, his claim lacks 
merit.1 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Shawn R. Boles, pro se. 
 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Elizabeth A. Matune, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
______________________ 
                                          
 
1  We also deny Boles’s motion to strike appellee’s merit brief.