2021 Ohio 2907
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- D’Andre Covington was arrested April 20, 2019, charged with falsification (1st‑degree misdemeanor) and failure to disclose personal information (4th‑degree misdemeanor); he waived counsel and represented himself at trial.
- Jury trial was held November 13, 2019; Covington was convicted and appealed.
- Covington moved on speedy‑trial grounds, argued denial of discovery (body‑cam and dash‑cam footage), and sought a bill of particulars; he also broadly alleged prosecutorial/judicial misconduct but made no developed argument on those claims.
- The state produced body‑worn camera footage after a court‑ordered deadline; the prosecutor said cruiser/dash‑cam footage was not in the state’s possession or was being checked.
- Multiple continuances were granted; many were requested by Covington or resulted from motions he filed, and Covington signed written extensions for other continuances.
- The court concluded at most 28 days were chargeable to the state for speedy‑trial purposes, found no abuse in discovery handling, and deemed any failure to provide a bill of particulars harmless because the complaint supplied the necessary details.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Speedy trial period | State: 90‑day period applies for highest offense (1st‑deg. misdemeanor); chargeable delays exclude those attributable to defendant or reasonable court continuances | Covington: Trial occurred after 45 days; speedy‑trial violation warranted dismissal | Court: 90‑day rule controls; defendant-caused and court‑ordered reasonable delays tolled time; at most 28 days chargeable — no violation; claim overruled |
| Discovery (video) | State: Complied with Crim.R.16, produced available body‑cam video and inquired about dash‑cam; complied within court‑ordered timeframe | Covington: State failed to provide dash‑cam and delayed body‑cam, warranting dismissal/sanctions | Court: Trial court reasonably extended production deadlines, gave latitude for body‑cam processing, and ordered inquiry about dash‑cam; no abuse of discretion; claim overruled |
| Bill of particulars | State: Complaint provided the information; bill of particulars was untimely and filed without leave | Covington: Failure to receive bill of particulars prejudiced his defense and required dismissal | Court: Motion untimely and presumed overruled; information in complaint made any error harmless; claim overruled |
| Other allegations (selective/prosecutorial/judicial misconduct) | State: Issues not properly argued or supported in record | Covington: Asserted multiple misconduct and selective‑prosecution claims | Court: Waived/forfeited—appellant failed to brief or support them; court did not address merits |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gage, 104 N.E.3d 994 (1st Dist. 2018) (when prima facie speedy‑trial violation shown, state must prove excludable time)
- Mauzy v. Kelly Servs., Inc., 664 N.E.2d 1272 (Ohio 1996) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for reviewing trial‑court rulings)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (Ohio 1983) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- State v. Chinn, 709 N.E.2d 1166 (Ohio 1999) (bill of particulars reversible only if lack of particulars actually prejudiced defense)