State v. Austin, 2019 Ohio 686

Background

Appellant Jason Austin, while incarcerated in Ohio, caused a written request for final disposition under R.C. 2941.401 dated April 1, 2017; that request was filed in the Fairfield County Common Pleas Court on April 17 and April 21, 2017.
Indicted March 27, 2017 on five counts: three counts of aggravated drug trafficking (methamphetamine, oxycodone, fentanyl), robbery, and failure to comply with police; appellee sought an arrest warrant and appellant remained in custody on other matters until October 5, 2017.
Multiple pretrial events and continuances followed: joint continuance (July 14, 2017) moving trial from July to October; defendant’s continuance/notice of alibi (Sept. 27, 2017) moving trial to November; counsel withdrawal and substitution in December 2017; various discovery exchanges and hearings.
Appellant filed a motion to dismiss Feb. 1, 2018, arguing appellee failed to try him within 180 days of his R.C. 2941.401 request; the trial court denied the motion at an oral hearing on Feb. 6, 2018, and appellant thereafter waived speedy-trial time going forward.
Pleas and sentencing: No contest to robbery and failure to comply (Counts IV–V) on April 10, 2018 (aggregate 5-year sentence); guilty pleas to Counts I–III on June 19, 2018 (three consecutive 18-month terms concurrent with the 5-year term).
Appellant appealed only the denial of the R.C. 2941.401 motion to dismiss as to Counts IV–V (speedy-trial claim). The trial court’s ruling was affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
When did the 180-day clock under R.C. 2941.401 begin?	State: Time began when the trial court received the request filings (April 17)	Austin: Time began when he dated/sent the request (April 1)	Clock began when appellant "caused to be delivered" the written notice (April 1)
Do the July 14, 2017 joint continuance and Sept. 27, 2017 defense continuance toll R.C. 2941.401 time?	State: Both continuances tolled time under R.C. 2945.72 principles	Austin: Continuances did not comply with R.C. 2941.401 (open-court requirement), so they should not toll time	Both continuances tolled the 180-day period (joint motion tolled; defendant’s motion tolled)
How to allocate days to state vs. defendant for pretrial events?	State: Various discovery responses, counsel changes, and defense motions created chargeable days for both sides such that total charged to state stayed within statutory limits	Austin: Even accounting for tolled periods, the state exceeded 180 days under R.C. 2941.401	Calculated days charged to state = 119 (under R.C. 2941.401); even converting later jail time to R.C. 2945.71 periods, state did not exceed applicable limits
Did appellant’s transfer from state prison to county jail change applicable speedy-trial statute or trigger triple-counting?	State: After appellant was in the county jail, R.C. 2941.401 no longer applied and general speedy-trial statutes governed; triple-counting did not apply because appellant was held on multiple charges	Austin: Transfer should not save the state if overall time exceeded R.C. 2941.401 limits	Court: R.C. 2941.401 applies only while in state prison; after transfer, general statute governs; triple-count did not alter outcome and overall time complied with controlling limits

Key Cases Cited

State v. Ladd, 56 Ohio St.2d 197 (Ohio 1978) (Sixth Amendment speedy-trial protections are fundamental and binding on the states)
State v. Pachay, 64 Ohio St.2d 218 (Ohio 1980) (Ohio statutory speedy-trial provisions must be strictly enforced)
Brecksville v. Cook, 75 Ohio St.3d 53 (Ohio 1996) (speedy-trial statutes are to be strictly construed against the prosecution)
State v. Smith, 140 Ohio App.3d 81 (Ohio Ct. App. 2000) (R.C. 2941.401 governs speedy-trial rights of prisoners and is factually limited to imprisonment term)
State v. Thieshen, 55 Ohio App.2d 99 (Ohio Ct. App. 1977) (triple-counting under R.C. 2945.71(E) applies only if accused is held solely on the pending charge)