State v. Gilbert, 2016 Ohio 3209

Nathon Gilbert, incarcerated at Marion Correctional Institute, learned a felony complaint and arrest warrant were pending in Avon Lake Municipal Court.
Gilbert filed a handwritten "notice of availability" with the municipal court stating he was incarcerated and available for final disposition and referenced R.C. 2941.401; the notice was not signed or certified by the warden.
More than a year later, after Gilbert was released, he was arrested on the outstanding warrant; the case was transferred to the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas and indicted on felonies.
Gilbert moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing his statutory speedy-trial rights under R.C. 2941.401 were violated because he had not been tried within 180 days after his notice.
The trial court denied the motion; Gilbert pled no contest, received community control, and appealed the denial of the dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Gilbert invoked R.C. 2941.401 speedy-trial protections	Gilbert argued his notice of availability substantially complied with R.C. 2941.401 and triggered the 180-day period	State argued Gilbert failed to follow the statutory procedure: notice must be given to the warden who must forward it with a warden's certificate to both court and prosecutor	Court held Gilbert did not comply with R.C. 2941.401; statute requires the warden-forwarding/certificate procedure and delivery to both court and prosecutor; thus no speedy-trial right was triggered

State v. Hairston, 101 Ohio St.3d 308 (2004) (describing R.C. 2941.401's purpose and construing statute as unambiguous)
United States v. Smith, 94 F.3d 204 (6th Cir.) (standard of review guidance for speedy-trial determinations)
United States v. Clark, 83 F.3d 1350 (11th Cir.) (standard of review guidance for speedy-trial determinations)
State v. Turner, 4 Ohio App.3d 305 (9th Dist. 1982) (holding notice must be delivered to both prosecutor and court to trigger R.C. 2941.401)