State v. Detamore
2016 Ohio 4682
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- While serving a prison term on unrelated charges, Detamore was indicted (Sept. 10, 2012) on multiple trafficking counts; an arrest warrant was issued to be served at a Rittman address.
- Detamore was released from prison and arrested on the instant indictment on Oct. 28, 2014. He did not cause written notice under R.C. 2941.401 to be delivered to the prosecutor/court while incarcerated.
- Detamore moved to dismiss for violation of his statutory and constitutional speedy-trial rights; the trial court denied the motion without a hearing.
- He then pleaded no contest to several counts, received 12 months community control, and appealed.
- The appellate court considered (1) whether R.C. 2941.401 was triggered and (2) whether the statute is unconstitutional as applied (plain-error review), and affirmed the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2941.401 speedy-trial period was triggered for an incarcerated defendant | State: Statute wasn’t triggered because defendant never caused the required written notice/certificate to be delivered; statute places the initial duty on the inmate. | Detamore: He had no knowledge of the charges while incarcerated; State knew or could have discovered his location and thus should have served him. | Court: Not triggered — defendant did not comply with R.C. 2941.401 and the statute places the duty on the inmate; State had no statutory duty to locate him. |
| Whether R.C. 2941.401 is unconstitutional as applied/plain error review | State: Issue not raised below; defendant bears burden to show plain and obvious error that affected outcome. | Detamore: As-applied violation of constitutional rights (mentions due process/equal protection) — statute prejudiced him. | Court: Not preserved; defendant failed to develop an as-applied constitutional argument or show plain error, so claim fails. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hairston, 101 Ohio St.3d 308 (Ohio 2004) (R.C. 2941.401 places initial duty on incarcerated defendant to cause written notice to be delivered; statute does not impose duty of reasonable diligence on state)
- State v. Dillon, 114 Ohio St.3d 154 (Ohio 2007) (warden’s written notice requirement is distinct; inmate’s mere awareness does not satisfy R.C. 2941.401)
- State v. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 464 (Ohio 2014) (plain-error standard for raising unpreserved constitutional challenges)
- In re M.D., 38 Ohio St.3d 149 (Ohio 1988) (failure to raise constitutional challenge in trial court forfeits review except for plain error)