State ex rel. Wentz v. Correll

• Decision Date: 12 February 1975
• Docket Number: No. 74-752,74-752
• Citation: 322 N.E.2d 889,41 Ohio St.2d 101
• Parties: , 70 O.O.2d 196 The STATE ex rel. WENTZ, Appellant, v. CORRELL et al., Judges, Appellees. 1
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 101

41 Ohio St.2d 101

322 N.E.2d 889, 70 O.O.2d 196

The STATE ex rel. WENTZ, Appellant, v. CORRELL et al., Judges, Appellees. ¹

No. 74-752.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Feb. 12, 1975.

Don E. Caplea, Canton, for appellant.

Harry K. Klide, City Solicitor, and Ronald E. Stocker, Canton, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Following the filing of his appeal in this court, appellant sought a stay of proceedings pending disposition of the appeal. A stay was denied, and, on October 4, 1974, appellant was tried by a jury and found guilty.

In State ex rel. Woodbury v. Spitler (1974), 40 Ohio St.2d 1, 318 N.E.2d 165, a case in which mandamus was sought in the Court of Appeals to compel relators' discharge on the ground that they were denied a speedy trial under R.C. 2945.71 et seq., this court held that relators had 'an adequate remedy by way of appeal from the final judgments of the trial court,' and affirmed the Court of Appeals' dismissal of the complaint. ⁴ See State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm. (1967), 11 Ohio St.2d 141, 228 N.E.2d 631.

Here, appellant has an adequate remedy available by way of appeal from his conviction.

Accordingly, on authority of State ex rel. Woodbury v. Spitler, supra, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

C. WILLIAM O'NEILL, C. J., and HARBERT, CORRINGAN, STERN, CELLEBREZZE, WILLIAM B. BROWN and PAUL W. BROWN, JJ., concur.

1 See R.C. 2731.04 and Maloney v. Court of Common Pleas (1962), 173 Ohio St.2d 226, 181 N.E.2d 270.

2 R.C. 2345.73(B), effective when appellant's motion was filed, provided:

'Upon motion made at or prior to the commencement of trial, a person charged with an offense shall be discharged if he is not brought to trial within the time required by Sections 2945.71 and 2945.72 of the Revised Code.'

R.C. 2945.71 and 2945.72, as applicable here, are analogous to former R.C. 2945.71 and 2945.72, repealed in 134 Ohio Laws H511.

3 R.C. 2945.72.

'The time within which accused must be brought to trial, or, in the case of felony, to preliminary hearing and trial, may be extended only by the following:

'* * *

'(E) Any period of delay necessitated by reason of a plea in bar or abatement, motion, proceeding, or action made or instituted by the accused:

'* * *

'(H) The period of any continuance granted on the accused's own motion, and the period of any reasonable continuance granted other than upon the accused's own motion.'

4 The dismissal of the complaint by the Court of Appeals was for the reason that the 'proceedings (appeals and actions seeking writs of prohibition and mandamus) instituted by the appellants were acts...