State v. Johnson

Summary

The Ohio Second District Court of Appeals affirmed Danzel Leon Johnson’s convictions for aggravated vehicular assault and failure to stop after an accident following his no-contest plea. The court held that neither Ohio’s statutory speedy-trial requirements nor the constitutional speedy-trial guarantee was violated, applying statutory arrest-based timing rules and the Barker v. Wingo balancing test.

Holdings

1. Ohio statutory speedy-trial time on new charges begins when the defendant is arrested or served with summons on those charges, not when the indictment and arrest warrant are filed. The period between dismissal without prejudice of the original charges and Johnson's arrest on the later felony indictment therefore was not counted.
2. Johnson failed to establish a constitutional speedy-trial violation under the Barker v. Wingo four-factor balancing test because, although the delay was presumptively prejudicial and post-indictment governmental negligence weighed somewhat in his favor, he did not demonstrate particularized actual prejudice and the totality of the circumstances did not support dismissal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Ohio's statutory speedy-trial period began when the felony indictment and arrest warrant were issued or when Johnson was arrested on the new charges.
2. Whether the delay between the initial arrest, indictment, and arrest on the indictment violated Johnson's constitutional right to a speedy trial under the Barker v. Wingo balancing test.

Disposition

affirmed