State ex rel. Brantley v. Anderson, 77 Ohio St. 3d 446

Per Curiam.

The court of appeals correctly determined that an appeal rather than the extraordinary writ of habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy when challenging claimed violations of an accused’s right to a speedy trial. State ex rel. Dotson v. Rogers (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 25, 607 N.E.2d 453; Russell v. Tate (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 444, 444-445, 596 N.E.2d 1039, 1040.

In addition, Brantley’s petition was subject to dismissal because he failed to attach a copy of his alleged commitment. R.C. 2725.04(D); Adkins v. McFaul (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 350, 353, 667 N.E.2d 1171, 1174.

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.

Case Details

Case Name: State ex rel. Brantley v. Anderson

Court Name: Ohio Supreme Court

Date Published: Feb 19, 1997

Citations: 77 Ohio St. 3d 446; 674 N.E.2d 1380; No. 96-1725

Docket Number: No. 96-1725

Court Abbreviation: Ohio