State ex rel. Brantley v. Ghee

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

80 Ohio St.3d 287

.]




        THE STATE EX REL. BRANTLEY, APPELLANT, V. GHEE, APPELLEE.
              [Cite as State ex rel. Brantley v. Ghee, 

1997-Ohio-116

.]
Habeas corpus—Alleged speedy trial violation not cognizable in habeas corpus—
        Commitment papers pertinent to claim must be attached to complaint—
        Writ available only if petitioner is entitled to immediate release from
        custody—Res judicata precludes filing of successive petitions.
    (No. 97-482—Submitted October 7, 1997—Decided November 19, 1997.)
       APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Richland County, No. 97CA9.
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} In January 1997, appellant, Gregory Brantley, an inmate at Mansfield
Correctional Institution, filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals for Richland
County for a writ of habeas corpus. Brantley challenged actions by his sentencing
court and the Adult Parole Authority (“APA”) in 1990 and 1991. He claimed
entitlement to habeas corpus relief because (1) his constitutional right to a speedy
trial had been violated, (2) the APA lacked authority to revoke his parole because
of an unreasonable delay in conducting his final parole revocation hearing, and (3)
the APA failed to reduce his aggregate sentence. The court of appeals denied the
writ because Brantley’s speedy trial claim failed to invoke the court’s original
jurisdiction in habeas corpus.
        {¶ 2} This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right. Brantley
has also filed a motion to supplement the record.
                                  __________________
        Gregory Brantley, pro se.
                                  __________________


        Per Curiam.
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




                           Motion to Supplement Record
       {¶ 3} Brantley initially requests that the court supplement the record on
appeal with documents he has filed in the Court of Appeals for Franklin County.
S.Ct.Prac.R. V(6) provides that in appeals to this court, “[i]f any part of the record
is not transmitted to the Supreme Court but is necessary to the Supreme Court’s
consideration of the questions presented on appeal, the Supreme Court, on its own
initiative or upon stipulation of the parties or motion of a party, may direct that a
supplemental record be certified and transmitted to the Clerk of the Supreme
Court.” The Franklin County records are not part of the applicable record here, see
S.Ct.Prac.R. V(1), nor are they necessary to the court’s review of the merits of this
appeal. In addition, “ ‘[a] reviewing court cannot add matter to the record before
it, which was not part of the trial court’s proceedings, and then decide the appeal
on the basis of the new matter.’ ” State ex rel. Fogle v. Steiner (1995), 

74 Ohio St.3d 158, 162

, 

656 N.E.2d 1288, 1293

, quoting State v. Ishmail (1978), 

54 Ohio St.2d 402

, 

8 O.O.3d 405

, 

377 N.E.2d 500

, paragraph one of the syllabus.
Accordingly, we deny Brantley’s motion to supplement the record.
                                       Merits
       {¶ 4} Brantley asserts in his two propositions of law that the court of appeals
erred by denying the writ of habeas corpus. The court of appeals, however, properly
denied the writ for the following reasons.
       {¶ 5} First, as the court of appeals properly concluded, Brantley’s claimed
violation of his right to a speedy trial is not cognizable in habeas corpus. State ex
rel. Brantley v. Anderson (1997), 

77 Ohio St.3d 446

, 

674 N.E.2d 1380

. Second,
Brantley did not attach commitment papers pertinent to his claim challenging the
APA’s revocation of his parole. Brown v. Rogers (1995), 

72 Ohio St.3d 339, 341

,

650 N.E.2d 422, 423

. Third, Brantley was not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus
on his sentence-reduction claim because he did not contend that he was thereby
entitled to release from prison. Swiger v. Seidner (1996), 

74 Ohio St.3d 685, 687

,



                                          2
                               January Term, 1997

660 N.E.2d 1214, 1216

 (habeas corpus lies only if the petitioner is entitled to
immediate release from custody). Finally, res judicata precluded Brantley’s filing
of successive habeas corpus petitions. See State ex rel. Richard v. Seidner (1996),

77 Ohio St.3d 68

, 

671 N.E.2d 28

; Brantley, supra.
       {¶ 6} Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of
appeals.
                                                               Judgment affirmed.
       MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
                              __________________




                                        3