State v. Allen, 2017 Ohio 4091

Carlo W. Allen was charged (complaint filed Aug. 11, 2016) with public indecency and disorderly conduct in Dayton Municipal Court; he pleaded not guilty and was served with summons on Aug. 23, 2016.
Court set a pretrial conference for Sept. 19, 2016 and initially set a bench trial for Sept. 29, 2016.
Allen timely filed a written jury demand on Sept. 21, 2016; the court then reset the case to the next available jury date, Oct. 27, 2016.
Allen moved to dismiss on Oct. 17, 2016 under R.C. 2945.71(B)(1), arguing the 45-day speedy-trial period (ending Oct. 7, 2016) was violated; the trial court overruled the motion.
Jury trial resulted in acquittal on public indecency and conviction for disorderly conduct; Allen appealed the speedy-trial denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Allen's statutory right to a speedy trial under R.C. 2945.71(B)(1) was violated	The State: speedy-trial time was extended properly because the jury demand was an action by the accused and R.C. 2945.72(E) applies	Allen: filing a jury demand should not justify the lengthy delay to Oct. 27, 2016; 11 business days was sufficient and court gave no contemporaneous explanation	Court: No violation — jury demand extended time under R.C. 2945.72(E); logistical impracticability justified resetting to next available jury date

State v. Butcher, 27 Ohio St.3d 28 (1986) (placing the burden on the State to show speedy-trial extensions are valid)
State v. Singer, 50 Ohio St.2d 103 (1977) (speedy-trial extensions strictly construed against the State)
State v. Marbury, 192 Ohio App.3d 210 (2011) (after‑the‑fact calendar explanation acceptable when it shows trial could not be held earlier)