State v. Gage, 2017 Ohio 8897

Talis Gage was arrested Sept. 9, 2015, and charged with a second-degree misdemeanor (obstructing official business) and a minor misdemeanor (walking in a roadway/impeding traffic); the second-degree charge was dismissed on the day of trial.
Gage asserted his right to a speedy trial on May 26, 2016; his bench trial occurred Oct. 19, 2016—over a year after arrest.
The record shows multiple continuances, waivers signed by Gage, failures to appear, and periods where Gage requested or consented to delays while incarcerated on other charges.
The trial court denied Gage’s motion to dismiss for violation of statutory and constitutional speedy-trial rights; he was convicted of the minor misdemeanor.
On appeal, the court analyzed statutory tolled time under R.C. 2945.71–.72 and applied the Barker v. Wingo four-factor test for constitutional speedy-trial claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the statutory speedy-trial period (R.C. 2945.71) was violated	State: Time was tolled by defendant’s waivers, continuances, failures to appear; only 81 days were chargeable to the state, so trial was within 90-day limit	Gage: He was not tried within 90 days of arrest and the state failed to show sufficient tolling; dismissal required	Court: Waivers and defendant-requested continuances removed time from state’s burden; only 81 chargeable days elapsed, so no statutory violation — motion to dismiss properly denied
Whether Gage’s federal/Ohio constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated	State: Delay largely due to defendant; three Barker factors favor state; no actual prejudice shown	Gage: Delay of over one year is presumptively prejudicial and his speedy-trial right was violated	Court: Delay triggered Barker review but reason for delay, late assertion of right, and lack of prejudice weigh for the State; constitutional claim fails

Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (sets four-factor balancing test for constitutional speedy-trial claims)
Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (U.S. 1992) (discusses threshold for presumptively prejudicial delay and presuming prejudice in extreme cases)
State v. Saffel, 35 Ohio St.3d 90 (Ohio 1988) (statutory list of allowable speedy-trial extensions under R.C. 2945.72)
State v. King, 70 Ohio St.3d 158 (Ohio 1994) (defendant’s signed waiver of speedy-trial time is effective to toll time)
State v. Selvage, 80 Ohio St.3d 465 (Ohio 1997) (delay over one year generally deemed presumptively prejudicial)
State v. Hirsch, 129 Ohio App.3d 294 (1st Dist. 1998) (defendant establishes prima facie statutory speedy-trial violation when not tried within statutory period)
State v. Brewster, 157 Ohio App.3d 342 (1st Dist. 2004) (once defendant shows untimely trial, state must prove tolled time)
Meeker v. State, 26 Ohio St.2d 9 (Ohio 1971) (Ohio constitutional guarantee of speedy trial and its application)
State v. Sears, 166 Ohio App.3d 166 (1st Dist. 2005) (recognizes that substantial misdemeanor delay can be presumptively prejudicial)