State v. Long

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio held that the speedy-trial clock begins when an appellate court orders a case remanded after reversing a conviction, and that a motion to dismiss based on speedy-trial grounds does not reset the clock. Applying the Barker v. Wingo factors, the court concluded that the delay violated John W. Long’s constitutional right to a speedy trial. The court reversed the appellate judgment and vacated Long’s conviction.

Holdings

1. When an appellate court reverses a conviction and remands the case for further proceedings or retrial, the speedy-trial clock begins on the date the appellate court orders the remand.
2. A motion to dismiss alleging a violation of the right to a speedy trial does not reset the speedy-trial clock to zero.
3. Long's constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated because all four Barker factors weighed in his favor.
4. Long's conviction must be vacated.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the speedy-trial clock following reversal of a conviction and remand begins on the date the appellate court orders remand.
2. Whether a defendant's motion to dismiss alleging a speedy-trial violation resets the speedy-trial clock.
3. Whether the delay following remand violated Long's constitutional right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment and Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution.
4. Whether the convictions should be vacated as the remedy for the speedy-trial violation.

Disposition

reversed