2021 Ohio 2495
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- James Cheatham was arrested in Dec 2017 on aggravated robbery, felonious assault, and robbery charges; multiple continuances and waivers occurred from Jan 2018–Sep 2019.
- Trial was set for Sept 30, 2019; the state disclosed an expert report only 10 days before trial (Crim.R. 16(K) requires disclosure 21 days before trial).
- Cheatham moved for a continuance and for appointment of a defense expert to rebut cell-tower testimony; the trial was rescheduled to Feb 2020 but no written continuance/waiver entry appears in the record.
- On the Feb 2020 trial date Cheatham moved to dismiss for violation of his speedy-trial rights; the trial court found no record of an explicit waiver and dismissed the charges as the 90-day statutory period expired in Dec 2019.
- The State appealed, arguing the continuance motion tolled speedy-trial time under R.C. 2945.72(H) and that the trial court should enter a nunc pro tunc finding reflecting the waiver/rescheduling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a defendant's motion for continuance (filed after the State's late expert disclosure) tolled speedy-trial time | R.C. 2945.72(H) charges time to the defendant when the defendant moves to continue, so time tolled by Cheatham's motion | The delay was caused by the State's Crim.R.16(K) violation; delays for continuances sought to remedy State misconduct should be charged to the State | Held for defendant: when continuance is sought solely because of the State's discovery violation, resulting delay is charged to the State and does not toll defendant's speedy-trial time |
| Whether the trial court should have entered a nunc pro tunc entry showing Cheatham waived speedy-trial time | Trial court should correct the record nunc pro tunc to show the rescheduling/waiver and thus preserve tolled time | No valid waiver exists in the record; the State's discovery violation prevents charging time to the defendant | Held for defendant: nunc pro tunc entry inappropriate; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Martin, 129 N.E.3d 437 (Ohio 2019) (court must focus on underlying source of delay when assigning speedy-trial time)
- State v. Long, 168 N.E.3d 1163 (Ohio 2020) (speedy-trial review involves mixed questions of law and fact)
- State v. Parker, 863 N.E.2d 1032 (Ohio 2007) (speedy-trial provisions are mandatory and strictly enforced)
- State v. Gage, 101 N.E.3d 557 (Ohio App. 2017) (burden on the State to show events tolled speedy-trial time)