State v. Braden
968 N.E.2d 49
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Braden was arrested on Nov. 1, 2004 in Ashtabula County on warrants from Ohio and Pennsylvania.
- Charges filed Nov. 3, 2004 in Eastern County Court included two counts of attempted aggravated murder, two counts of felonious assault, two counts of vandalism, and fleeing/evading (case No. 04 CRA 709).
- Braden appeared on Nov. 3, 2004; he signed a waiver of time for the hearing and a preliminary hearing was scheduled for Dec. 14, 2004.
- An extradition to Pennsylvania was filed Nov. 3, 2004; Braden waived extradition and was delivered to Pennsylvania authorities.
- An arrest warrant was issued Dec. 14, 2004 for failure to appear at the preliminary hearing; the warrant noted Braden had been in Erie County, PA prison since Nov. 5.
- A Pennsylvania detainer was filed and Braden was indicted Jan. 24, 2005 on similar offenses in case 05 CR 31, with Braden noted as incarcerated in Pennsylvania.
- A Pennsylvania detainer was lodged Aug. 21, 2006; Braden was served with the indictment Sept. 2, 2010; arraignment occurred Sept. 7, 2010; a motion to dismiss based on speedy-trial rights was granted Dec. 30, 2010.
- The Seventh District acknowledged Braden remained incarcerated in Pennsylvania from 2004 until his delivery to Ohio authorities in 2010, with disputed extradition bail records.]
- The court remanded the matter after reversing the trial court’s dismissal decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the IAD governed Braden’s speedy-trial rights while incarcerated in Pennsylvania | Cannon argues IAD applied and tolled time until Braden’s release. | Braden did not properly invoke the IAD, so its 180-day limit did not apply. | IAD not properly invoked; IAD did not control speedy-trial period. |
| Whether Braden’s speedy-trial rights were violated under Ohio law after IAD did not apply | Rely on statutory/constitutional speedy-trial protections. | IAD absence means Ohio speedy-trial rules govern; no violation. | Speedy-trial rights were violated under independent analysis; trial court erred. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Anderson, 189 Ohio App.3d 697 (2010-Ohio-5068) (IAD invoked; detainer mechanics; de novo review of IAD issues)
- State v. Koester, 2003-Ohio-6098 (2003-Ohio-6098) (IAD not to extend post-IO speedy-trial limits; detainer timing not dispositive)
- State v. Rumer, 2009-Ohio-265 (2009-Ohio-265) (Ohio speedy-trial standards; burden shifting after prima facie showing)
- State v. O’Brien, 34 Ohio St.3d 7 (1987) (Coextensive statutory and constitutional speedy-trial rights)
- State v. King, 70 Ohio St.3d 158 (1994) (Waiver of speedy-trial rights requires knowing, voluntary waiver)
- State v. Hiatt, 120 Ohio App.3d 247 (1997-Ohio-1025) (Speedy-trial issues; standard of review)