State v. Agostinelli
2021 Ohio 2458
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background:
- Dec. 17, 2018: two-vehicle crash in Hardin County resulting in a fatality.
- Feb. 12, 2019: Agostinelli charged in TRD1900284 with left-of-center (minor) and vehicular homicide (first-degree misdemeanor); trial set for June 21, 2019; State moved to dismiss the charges without prejudice on Sept. 5, 2019 and the court granted dismissal the same day; record contains no proof of compliance with Crim.R. 48 / R.C. 2941.33 "open court" requirements or notice to defense counsel.
- Mar. 20, 2020: new complaint filed in CRB200083 charging vehicular manslaughter (R.C. 2903.06(A)(4)); Agostinelli pleaded not guilty March 24; complaint was amended March 26, 2020.
- No speedy-trial waiver was filed; State conceded that the 90-day speedy-trial period had elapsed in the first case; Agostinelli moved to dismiss for speedy-trial violation (filed June 16, 2020); trial court denied the motion and later accepted a no-contest plea (Oct. 29, 2020) and sentenced him (Nov. 23, 2020).
- Appeal: Third District reversed, holding the speedy-trial time from the first case must be tacked to the second (because charges arise from the same facts), found a statutory speedy-trial violation, vacated the conviction, and remanded with instruction to discharge under R.C. 2945.73(B).
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether speedy-trial time from the original (dismissed) complaint must be tacked to the second complaint arising from the same facts | State argued the new complaint began a new speedy-trial period and any asserted delays or extensions justified denying dismissal | Agostinelli argued the new charge arose from the same facts, the State knew those facts earlier, no waiver or chargeable delays occurred, and >90 days had run | Court held tacking applies; speedy-trial time from the first case carries to the second; statutory time exceeded; conviction vacated and discharge ordered |
| Whether the complaint/summons in CRB200083 failed to comply with Crim.R. 3 so as to deprive the court of subject-matter jurisdiction | State maintained the complaint was sufficient and the court had jurisdiction | Agostinelli argued defects in the complaint/summons deprived the court of jurisdiction | Moot — appellate court declined to address because the speedy-trial ruling resolved the appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (established the federal speedy-trial balancing test)
- State v. Ramey, 132 Ohio St.3d 309 (Ohio recognition of constitutional speedy-trial rights)
- State v. Blackburn, 118 Ohio St.3d 163 (Ohio speedy-trial statutory framework)
- State v. Adams, 43 Ohio St.3d 67 (tacking speedy-trial time when new charges arise from same facts)
- State v. Bonarrigo, 62 Ohio St.2d 7 (tacking/time limits principles)
- State v. Broughton, 62 Ohio St.3d 253 (application of tacking doctrine)
- State v. Parker, 113 Ohio St.3d 207 (reiterating principles on related charges and speedy-trial computation)
- Singer v. State, 50 Ohio St.2d 103 (obligation to try accused within statutory time frames)
- Brecksville v. Cook, 75 Ohio St.3d 53 (speedy-trial statutes construed strictly against the State)