Case Name: Russell, Appellant, v. Tate, Warden, Appellee
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1992-08-26
Citations: 64 Ohio St. 3d 444
Docket Number: No. 91-1829
Parties: Russell, Appellant, v. Tate, Warden, Appellee.
Judges: Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, Wright, H. Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, Third Service
Volume: 64
Pages: 444–445

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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 challeng ing 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.