In Russell v. Tate, 52 Ark. 541, 13 S.W. 130, 132, 7 L.R.A. 180, 20 Am. St. Rep. 193, a bill was filed for the purpose, among other things, of compelling restitution to the town treasurer of the town of Russellville of the sum of $675.00 paid out by the town authorities, for wrongful and illegal purposes.Summary of this case from Shillito v. City of Spartanburg
Submitted May 12, 1992 —
Decided August 26, 1992.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Scioto County, No. 91CA-1983.
The Trumbull County Grand Jury indicted appellant, Victor J. Russell, in October 1987, for aggravated robbery, kidnapping, felonious assault, forgery and receiving stolen property. The Court of Common Pleas of Trumbull County convicted appellant and sentenced him to incarceration for indeterminate terms of ten to twenty-five years for aggravated robbery and for kidnapping, to be served consecutively, and eight to fifteen years for felonious assault, served concurrently. Appellant then appealed his convictions to the Eleventh District Court of Appeals, where the court overruled each assignment of error and affirmed the convictions. State v. Russell (Dec. 18, 1989), Trumbull App. Nos. 4032 and 4084, unreported, 1989 WL 152692.
On June 21, 1991, appellant filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Court of Appeals for Scioto County. The petition alleged that appellant's right to a speedy trial had been violated and that he was therefore entitled to release from further confinement at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility in Lucasville, Ohio. Appellee filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that because appellant did not challenge the sentencing court's jurisdiction, he failed to state a claim cognizable in habeas corpus.
The court of appeals denied the writ, holding that habeas corpus was not an appropriate remedy for the grounds alleged, and that the grounds raised had already been adjudicated in appellant's direct appeal.
The cause is before this court upon an appeal as of right.
Victor J. Russell, pro se. Lee I. Fisher, Attorney General, and Jutta E. Martin, for appellee.
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.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.