Boles v. Knab
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Boles v. Knab, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-5049.] NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published. BOLES, APPELLANT, v. KNAB, WARDEN, APPELLEE. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Boles v. Knab, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-5049.] Habeas corpus Failure to state a viable claim Adequate remedy at law available Court of appeals dismissal of petition affirmed. (No. 2011-0808 Submitted September 21, 2011 Decided October 4, 2011.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Ross County, No. 11CA3201. __________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition of appellant, Shawn R. Boles, for a writ of habeas corpus. Boles s speedy-trial and double-jeopardy claims under R.C. 2945.73(D) are not cognizable in habeas corpus. See Tisdale v. Eberlin, 114 Ohio St.3d 201, 2007Ohio-3833, 870 N.E.2d 1191, ¶ 7 ( a claimed violation of a right to a speedy trial is not cognizable in habeas corpus ); Smith v. Voorhies, 119 Ohio St.3d 345, 2008-Ohio-4479, 894 N.E.2d 44, ¶ 9 ( res judicata is not an appropriate basis for extraordinary relief ). An appeal rather than a writ of habeas corpus is the SUPREME COURT OF OHIO proper remedy to challenge alleged violations of the right to a speedy trial. In re Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus for Jackson (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 189, 190, 522 N.E.2d 540 (affirming judgment denying writ of habeas corpus based on claimed violation of right to speedy trial under R.C. 2945.71 through 2945.73 and the United States and Ohio Constitutions). Appeal is also the appropriate remedy to raise a claimed violation of double jeopardy. Smith at ¶ 9. {¶ 2} Dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for failure to state a claim was warranted because after all factual allegations of Boles s petition were presumed to be true and all reasonable inferences therefrom were made in his favor, it appeared beyond doubt that he was not entitled to the requested extraordinary relief in habeas corpus. No further inquiry into the legality of his detention was necessary. And insofar as Boles claims that the court of appeals judgment that he is appealing from does not constitute a final, appealable order, his claim lacks merit.1 Judgment affirmed. O CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O DONNELL, LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. __________________ Shawn R. Boles, pro se. Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Elizabeth A. Matune, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. ______________________ 1 We also deny Boles s motion to strike appellee s merit brief. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
