Cleveland v. White, 2013 Ohio 5423

In July 2008 George White was accused of biting a ten-month-old child at a bank; Officer Hawkins observed bite marks and White was arrested.
A misdemeanor child endangering complaint was filed July 22, 2008; a certified-mail summons (July 24) was returned "unclaimed."
No further attempts to locate or serve White were made until his unrelated arrest in July 2012, when the outstanding capias was discovered.
White was arraigned and convicted after a 2012 bench trial; he appealed raising five assignments of error.
The Eighth District found dispositive White’s claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to dismiss for violation of the speedy-trial right, and reversed and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to move to dismiss for speedy-trial violation	City: delay was permissible because White’s location was unknown	White: four-year delay was excessive and unjustified; counsel should have moved to dismiss	Counsel was ineffective; dismissal motion would likely have succeeded due to statutory and constitutional speedy-trial violations
Whether the statutory 90-day speedy-trial rule was violated	City: asserted tolling because defendant was allegedly absent/unknown	White: state failed to bring him to trial within R.C. time limits and did not exercise due diligence	Statutory speedy-trial requirement was not met; burden fell to prosecution to show tolling, which it did not
Whether length and reason for delay trigger Barker analysis	City: delay due to inability to find defendant	White: delay (4 years) is presumptively prejudicial and resulted from official negligence	Four-year delay is presumptively prejudicial; prosecutor showed negligence/lack of reasonable diligence in locating defendant
Whether delay produced prejudice sufficient under Barker/Doggett	City: little specific prejudice shown	White: excessive delay itself undermines reliability and is presumptive prejudice	Even without specific proof of lost evidence, the excessive delay combined with negligence favored defendant under Barker/Doggett

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance requires deficient performance and prejudice)
Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (four-factor speedy-trial balancing test)
Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (excessive delay can create presumptive prejudice)
State v. Singer, 50 Ohio St.2d 103 (state bears burden to bring accused to trial within statutory period)
State v. Selvage, 80 Ohio St.3d 465 (delay of more than one year is presumptively prejudicial for Barker trigger)