State v. Ferguson
2017 Ohio 556
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant-appellant Theo Ferguson filed a pro se App.R. 26(B) application for reconsideration of this court's December 30, 2016 decision affirming the trial court's denial of his motion to withdraw a guilty plea.
- The dispute centers on whether Ferguson's speedy-trial rights were violated after an initial dismissal in municipal court and subsequent proceedings in the common pleas court.
- The court previously held the dismissal in municipal court tolled the speedy-trial clock, and after dismissal and reindictment the speedy-trial clock restarts upon arrest.
- Ferguson contended the appellate decision misstated the indictment date (he said May 2012) and argued that the speedy-trial clock should have restarted on that May 2012 indictment date.
- The State opposed reconsideration, arguing the court’s speedy-trial analysis was correct and that Ferguson mischaracterized dates and the controlling rule.
- The court denied reconsideration, explaining (1) it had not misidentified the indictment date, (2) arrest/arraignment — not the later indictment date — restarts the speedy-trial clock after dismissal and reindictment, and (3) no obvious error existed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appellate court erred in its speedy-trial analysis | Appellee (State) argued the court correctly treated the municipal-court dismissal as tolling the speedy-trial clock and that the clock restarts on arrest | Ferguson argued the court misstated dates and that the speedy-trial clock should restart on the May 2012 indictment date | Denied reconsideration; court held no obvious error — the clock restarts on arrest/arraignment after dismissal and reindictment, not on the subsequent indictment date |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Broughton, 62 Ohio St.3d 253 (1991) (after dismissal and reindictment, the speedy-trial time restarts upon arrest)
- State v. Owens, 112 Ohio App.3d 334 (11th Dist. 1996) (applications for reconsideration are not for mere disagreement with an appellate court’s reasoning)
- Columbus v. Hodge, 37 Ohio App.3d 68 (10th Dist. 1987) (standards for appellate reconsideration require showing an obvious error or an unconsidered issue)