State ex rel. Long v. Bettman, 70-398
| Decision Date | 24 September 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 70-398,70-398 |
| Citation | 262 N.E.2d 859,24 Ohio St.2d 16 |
| Parties | , 53 O.O.2d 9 The STATE ex rel. LONG v. BETTMAN, Judge, Common Pleas Court of Hamilton County. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
William R. Long, in pro. per.
Melvin G. Rueger, Pros. Atty., and Leonard Kirschner, Cincinnati, for respondent.
This is an action in mandamus originating in this court. Relator is apparently requesting an order directing respondent to dismiss certain criminal charges against him for lack of a speedy trial on a 1968 indictment. Relator is presently incarcerated in a Kentucky penal institution.
The state has filed a motion to dismiss the petition.
The facts, as set forth in the state's brief, are as follows:
Relator was indicted on March 8, 1968. He did not appear at the arraignment on March 11, 1968, and his bond was forfeited. Relator was later found to be in a Kentucky penal institution and a detainer was placed against him. In November 1968, relator filed a demand for a speedy trial and he was returned to Ohio in January 1969. Counsel was appointed to represent him and trial set for February 18, 1969. On February 18, 1969, relator and his counsel appeared in court and requested a continuance. On February 19, an entry was made showing that relator had retained private counsel. The case was set for trial on March 27, at which time the relator requested a second continuance because one of his witnesses was ill. The case was reset for trial on April 11, at which time relator requested a third continuance and filed a notice of alibi. The case was set for trial, for a fourth time, on May 1, on which date the state had the case continued because of a heart attack of the prosecuting witness. Kentucky then demanded relator's return for a parole hearing on June 11, 1969. The case was rescheduled for trial on June 25, when relator again asked for a continuance because he had returned to Kentucky for a parole hearing. No further demand has been made for trial by relator or his counsel since that time.
In order for relator to be entitled to a writ of mandamus he must show two things: (1) A clear legal right to the relief prayed for (State ex rel. Board of Education, Evendale Local School District v. Griffin, 161 Ohio St. 537, 119 N.E.2d 886), and (2) a clear legal duty on the respondent to perform the act (State ex rel. Clink v. Smith, 16 Ohio St.2d 1, 240 N.E.2d 869).
Relator fails on both of those issues. When relator first demanded a speedy trial, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Nyitray v. Industrial Com'n of Ohio
...is an extraordinary legal remedy which should be granted to enforce only clear legal rights. See, e.g., State, ex rel. Long, v. Bettman (1970), 24 Ohio St.2d 16, 262 N.E.2d 859 . Furthermore, only such duties as are specifically mandated by law may be enforced by mandamus. See, e.g., State,......
-
State ex rel. Martin v. Connor
...Ohio St. 81, 84 N.E.2d 276 ; State ex rel. Bd. of Edn. v. Griffin (1954), 161 Ohio St. 537, 119 N.E.2d 886 ; State ex rel. Long v. Bettman (1970), 24 Ohio St.2d 16, 262 N.E.2d 859 ; State ex rel. National City Bank, v. Bd. of Edn. (1977), 52 Ohio St.2d 81, 369 N.E.2d 1200 ; Bd. of Edn. v. S......
-
State ex rel. Capital City Excavating Co., Inc. v. Industrial Commission, 77-978
...writ of mandamus, a relator must demonstrate that he has a clear legal right to the relief prayed for. See State ex rel. Long v. Bettman (1970), 24 Ohio St.2d 16, 17, 262 N.E.2d 859. Since IC-3-05.03(A)(5) is constitutional, and the commission did not abuse its discretion when it determined......
-
State ex rel. Lee v. Ferguson
...the respondent to perform the act (State, ex rel. Clink, v. Smith, 16 Ohio St.2d 1, 240 N.E.2d 869).' State, ex rel. Long, v. Bettman (1970), 24 Ohio St.2d 16, 17, 262 N.E.2d 859, 860. See State, ex rel. Pressley, v. Indus. Comm. (1967), 11 Ohio St.2d 141, 228 N.E.2d Relator here has establ......