Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Richland
Petitioner RALPH DEAN, PRO SE
Respondent MAURA O'NEILL JAITE Senior Assistant Attorney
General Ohio Attorney General's Office Criminal Justice
JUDGES: Hon. John W. Wise, P.J., Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.,
Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
Petitioner, Ralph Dean, has filed a Complaint for Writ of
Habeas Corpus wherein he argues he is entitled to immediate
release from prison because the Interstate Agreement on
Detainers ("IAD") was violated. Respondent has
filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted.
Dean was charged with murder in Richland County, Ohio on
November 9, 1976. Following his initial appearance in
municipal court in Richland, Dean was released to the state
of Kentucky to face an additional murder charge there. Once
Dean was released to Kentucky, the Richland County murder
charge was dismissed. A secret indictment was issued on
January 21, 1977 in Richland County against Dean for the Ohio
murder, however, it was not served on Dean but kept sub rosa
in a safe in the office of the Richland Common Pleas Clerk of
Dean plead guilty in Kentucky to a reduced charge of
manslaughter on October 18, 1977 and was sentenced to prison.
In August 1981, Dean was paroled in Kentucky. Shortly
thereafter, he was arrested on a warrant from Ohio relating
to the Richland County murder indictment. On August 10, 1982,
Dean was convicted of murder in Richland County.
Dean appealed his Richland County murder conviction to this
Court wherein he raised issues regarding Ohio's speedy
trial statute and the constitutional right to speedy trial.
This Court affirmed his conviction in State v. Dean,
5th Dist. Richland No. 2090, 1983 WL 6385.
In 1989, Dean filed a federal habeas corpus petition again
raising the speedy trial issue. The federal court denied the
petition on the basis Dean suffered no actual prejudice due
to the delay. Dean v. Marshall, 880 F.2d 414 (6th
Dean's prior arguments were classified as speedy trial
issues. He now frames his argument as a speedy trial
violation of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers.
We find Petitioner's claim for habeas corpus does not lie
because he has or had an adequate remedy at law to raise the
IAD argument on direct appeal ...