State v. Johnson, 2017 Ohio 884

On December 24, 2005, Samuel Johnson allegedly broke into his former girlfriend’s apartment, assaulted and stabbed her; police arrested him at the scene.
A jury convicted Johnson of aggravated burglary and two counts of felonious assault; he was sentenced to a total of 12 years’ imprisonment.
Johnson appealed; this court affirmed his conviction and the Ohio Supreme Court declined review.
On May 23, 2016, nine years after conviction, Johnson filed a pro se motion to vacate his sentence alleging a speedy-trial violation (delay in holding a preliminary hearing) and ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to move to dismiss.
The trial court denied the motion as barred by res judicata; Johnson appealed that denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Johnson’s speedy-trial rights were violated by delay in preliminary hearing	Johnson: preliminary hearing occurred beyond statutory time limits, so speedy-trial rights were violated	State: claim could have been raised earlier and is barred by res judicata	Court: Speedy-trial claim must be timely asserted; here it is barred by res judicata and does not void subject-matter jurisdiction
Whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to move to dismiss on speedy-trial grounds	Johnson: assigned counsel should have moved to dismiss under R.C. 2945.71	State: ineffective-assistance claim could have been raised at trial or on direct appeal and is barred by res judicata	Court: Ineffective-assistance claim is barred by res judicata; trial court did not err in denying motion

State v. Blackburn, 118 Ohio St.3d 163 (Ohio 2008) (statutory speedy-trial time limits implement constitutional right)
State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93 (Ohio 1996) (doctrine of res judicata bars raising claims that were or could have been raised on direct appeal)
State v. Trummer, 114 Ohio App.3d 456 (7th Dist. 1996) (speedy-trial right is not self-executing and must be timely asserted)