Summary
The Twelfth District Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed Zachary Davis's convictions for receiving stolen property after a no-contest plea. The court held that his statutory speedy-trial rights under Ohio Revised Code § 2941.401 were not violated because the 180-day period began when he delivered notice to the correctional institution's warden and was tolled by his unavailability and discovery-related delays.
Holdings
- The 180-day speedy-trial period begins when an imprisoned defendant delivers written notice of the place of imprisonment and a request for final disposition to the warden of the institution, not when the notice is later received by the prosecuting attorney or court clerk.
- The tolling provisions of R.C. 2945.72 apply to the 180-day speedy-trial period under R.C. 2941.401.
- The speedy-trial period was tolled for 56 days by Davis's discovery request and failure to respond to reciprocal discovery, and for 140 days while he was unavailable for hearing or trial despite diligent efforts to secure his appearance.
- R.C. 2941.401 and R.C. 2945.72(H) are not irreconcilable, and R.C. 2945.72(H) may apply even though R.C. 2941.401 requires the prisoner or counsel to be present for a continuance granted under that statute.
Questions Presented
- Whether the 180-day speedy-trial period under R.C. 2941.401 began when Davis delivered his notice and request for final disposition to the prison warden or when the request was received by the county clerk.
- Whether periods during which Davis was unavailable for arraignment or trial, and periods attributable to his discovery motion and failure to respond to reciprocal discovery, tolled the 180-day period under R.C. 2945.72.
- Whether R.C. 2945.72, including its continuance provision, applies to the speedy-trial period established by R.C. 2941.401, and whether those statutes are irreconcilable under R.C. 1.51.
- Whether the trial court erred in denying Davis's motion to dismiss the indictment for violation of his statutory speedy-trial right.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (12)
- State v. Murphy, 2007-Ohio-2068, ¶¶ 11, 14-16 (12th Dist.)(followed)
- State v. Baker, 1997-Ohio-229, ¶ 8(followed)
- State v. McKinney, 2021-Ohio-3870, ¶ 14 (12th Dist.)(followed)
- State v. Williams, 2023-Ohio-3647, ¶¶ 1, 18(followed)
- State v. Taylor, 2011-Ohio-1001, ¶ 15 (7th Dist.)(followed)
- State v. Ray, 2005-Ohio-2771, ¶¶ 29-30 (2d Dist.)(followed)
- State v. Colon, 2010-Ohio-2326, ¶¶ 32-38 (5th Dist.)(followed)
- State v. Ervin, 2021-Ohio-47, ¶ 20 (4th Dist.)(followed)
- State v. Smith, 140 Ohio App.3d 81, 2000-Ohio-1777 (3d Dist.)(followed)
- State v. Knox, 102 Ohio App.3d 147, 149 (9th Dist. 1995)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 12.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…