Brown v. Leonard

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

.]




             BROWN, APPELLANT, v. LEONARD, WARDEN, APPELLEE.
                    [Cite as Brown v. Leonard, 

.]
Habeas corpus sought to effect relator’s immediate release from prison—Dismissal
        of petition affirmed.
    (No. 99-916—Submitted August 25, 1999—Decided September 29, 1999.)
         APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Allen County, No. 1-99-20.
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} In March 1999, appellant, Lawrence Brown, filed a petition in the
Court of Appeals for Allen County for a writ of habeas corpus to compel his
immediate release from prison. Brown claimed that he was entitled to the writ
because at his criminal trial, he had been denied his constitutional right to a speedy
trial and his trial court had erroneously enhanced his sentence by use of an improper
specification. The court of appeals dismissed Brown’s petition.
        {¶ 2} This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right.
                                  __________________
        Lawrence Brown, pro se.
        Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Michele M. Schoeppe,
Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
                                  __________________
        Per Curiam.
        {¶ 3} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals for the reasons stated
in its opinion. Neither a claimed violation of the right to a speedy trial nor a mere
sentencing error is cognizable in habeas corpus. Russell v. Mitchell (1999), 

, 

; Heddleston v. Mack (1998), 

, 

. Further, Brown waived the additional claims he raises
in this appeal, e.g., ineffective assistance of counsel, by failing to raise them below,
                           SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




and such claims are also not cognizable in habeas corpus. State ex rel. Porter v.
Cleveland Dept. of Pub. Safety (1998), 

, 

,
309; Thomas v. Huffman (1998), 

, 

.
                                                             Judgment affirmed.
       MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
                             __________________




                                        2