2015 Ohio 4156
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- James L. Hammond was arrested April 13, 2014 for OVI and released the next day; an initial municipal complaint was filed April 15, 2014.
- Counsel entered appearance April 18, 2014 and filed a demand for discovery, jury demand, time waiver, and a motion to preserve evidence.
- The State filed a nolle prosequi April 21, 2014 to permit refiling of a corrected ticket; the court granted the nolle April 22, 2014 and the original case was dismissed.
- The State refiled charges May 14, 2014. Hammond moved to dismiss September 16, 2014 arguing the nolle was void (not entered in open court) and that the delay violated Ohio speedy-trial statutes.
- The trial court ruled the time was tolled by the nolle and by defendant motions/continuances, denied dismissal, and Hammond was convicted after a jury trial; he appealed claiming denial of his speedy-trial right.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the nolle prosequi tolled statutory speedy-trial time between dismissal and refiling | The State: nolle tolls the running of statutory speedy-trial time between dismissal and refiling of same-charge complaint | Hammond: nolle was invalid because it was not entered in open court and he received no notice; therefore time continued to run | Court: even assuming nolle did not toll, statutory time had not expired when trial occurred; court accepted State's tolling calculation and overruled dismissal motion |
| Whether other events tolled the 90-day statutory clock (discovery demand, continuances, defendant motions) | The State: discovery demand, prosecutor continuance, and defendant's own motion to dismiss tolled/statutorily extended the running time | Hammond: challenged overall calculation and counted days between dismissal and refiling toward the 90 days | Court: discovery demand tolled time (April 18–June 20); prosecutor continuance was a reasonable extension entered before expiration; defendant’s motion tolled the clock; under these tolling events trial occurred within 90 days |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bonarrigo, 62 Ohio St.2d 7 (1980) (nolle prosequi between filings can toll speedy-trial time)
- State v. Broughton, 62 Ohio St.3d 253 (1991) (time between dismissal and refiling not counted unless defendant held in jail or on bail under Crim.R. 12(I))
- Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22 (1977) (leave-of-court requirement in Rule 48 protects against prosecutorial abuse but does not transfer absolute dismissal power to judiciary)
- United States v. Cowan, 524 F.2d 504 (5th Cir. 1975) (Rule 48 leave-of-court is a check on prosecutorial power; courts should not lightly usurp good-faith executive dismissal)
- State v. Brown, 98 Ohio St.3d 121 (2002) (demand for discovery or bill of particulars is a tolling event under R.C. 2945.72(E))