State v. Charity, 2013 Ohio 5385

State indicted Charity and co-defendant Rutledge for aggravated murder with a firearm specification on Oct 14, 2010; Charity was served Oct 15, 2010 while jailed on unrelated charges.
Charity faced multiple pending indictments for felonious assault and burglary during the same period and remained incarcerated on those charges.
June 7, 2011, Charity was sentenced to prison in unrelated cases; he remained in custody at Mahoning County Jail for ongoing charges.
July 30, 2012, trial date set; Charity moved to dismiss the indictment on speedy-trial grounds and did not execute a speedy-trial waiver.
Trial court dismissed the indictment as a speedy-trial violation; State timely appealed to challenge the dismissal.
Key issue is whether the court correctly applied R.C. 2945.71, et seq. and R.C. 2941.401 to calculate Charity’s speedy-trial time in light of prison status.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper application of timing statutes	Charity misapplied timing; 2945.71 tolled until prison admission; 2941.401 governs after. 2941.401 should apply once imprisoned.	Court should apply 2945.71 from arrest through prison-admission and then 2941.401; warden-notice issues are irrelevant once clearly aware.	Trial court erred; 2945.71 ceased on prison admission; 2941.401 governed thereafter.
Did the speedy-trial clock reach 270 days before 2941.401 governed?	Clock tolled only by continuances; 270-day limit under 2945.71 was reached before 2941.401 applied.	Record uncertainty on continuances; clock did not conclusively reach 270 days before 2941.401.	The clock did not reach the 270th day before 2941.401 took over.
Did defendant properly trigger the 180-day period under 2941.401?	Charity failed to trigger 180-day period; warden’s non-notification does not excuse failure to trigger.	Charity was aware of the indictment; the duty to trigger rests with him regardless of warden notice.	Charity failed to trigger the 180-day period; 180-day clock did not run.

Beckett v. State, 2007-Ohio-3175 (7th Dist. 2007) (prison-based speedy-trial rights apply when defendant is incarcerated; 180-day clock may be triggered even if not timely noticed)
State v. Hairston, 101 Ohio St.3d 308 (2004) (defines 2941.401 duty to deliver written notice and trigger 180-day period)
State v. Stewart, 2006-Ohio-4164 (2d Dist. 2006) (when incarcerated, 2941.401 prevails over 2945.71)
State v. Brown, 2005-Ohio-2939 (7th Dist. 2005) (continued delays toll speedy-trial time under 2945.72(H))
State v. Beckett, 2007-Ohio-3175 (7th Dist. 2007) ( Beckett reinforces that a defendant clearly aware of charges has duty to trigger 180-day clock)