Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 10-17-2019

Case Style:

DENNIS D. JACKSON -vs- BRIAN COOK, WARDEN

Case Number: 19CA27

Judge: Patricia A. Delaney

Court: COURT OF APPEALS FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Plaintiff's Attorney: Dave Yost
Ohio Attorney General

William H. Lamb
Assistant Attorney General

Defendant's Attorney:

Description:

Call 888-354-4529 if you need a Criminal Defense Attorney in Ohio.





On June 27, 2019, Dennis Jackson filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus
on the basis that his speedy trial rights were violated following a mistrial and
commencement of a second trial. Mr. Jackson claims the trial court lost jurisdiction before
the start of his second trial on December 3, 2010. This is the only basis for Mr. Jackson’s
writ. The Ohio Attorney General has moved to dismiss the writ.
{¶2} The Court grants the motion to dismiss because “[a] claimed violation of a
criminal defendant’s right to speedy trial is not cognizable in habeas corpus.” Travis v.
Bagley, 92 Ohio St.3d 322, 323, 750 N.E.2d 166 (2001), citing Brown v. Leonard, 86 Ohio
St.3d 593, 716 N.E.2d 183 (1999); State ex rel. Rackley v. Sloan, 150 Ohio St.3d 11,
2016-Ohio-3416, 78 N.E.3d 819, ¶9. Instead, an appeal is the appropriate remedy. Travis
at 323, citing State ex rel. Brantley v. Anderson, 77 Ohio St.3d 446, 674 N.E.2d 1380
(1997).
{¶3} Further, Mr. Jackson had an adequate remedy at law, by way of a direct
appeal, which he pursued in the Second District Court of Appeals. See State v. Jackson,
2nd Dist. Montgomery No. 24430, 2012-Ohio-2335. In his direct appeal, Mr. Jackson
raised the very same speedy trial argument that he sets forth in his petition for writ of
habeas corpus. Id. at ¶¶15-33. The availability of this alternative remedy, which Mr.
Jackson pursued unsuccessfully on the speedy trial issue, precludes a writ of habeas
corpus. See Rackley at ¶10, citing State ex rel. O’Neal v. Bunting, 140 Ohio St.3d 339,
2014-Ohio-4037, 18 N.E.3d 430, ¶15 (“The availability of alternative remedies at law,
even if those remedies were not sought or were unsuccessful, precludes a writ of habeas
corpus.”)

Outcome: Because a writ of habeas corpus may not be used to challenge an alleged
denial of a speedy trial right and extraordinary relief is not available to re-litigate the same issue already unsuccessfully litigated, the writ is dismissed.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: