State v. Harris, 2012 Ohio 5868

Harris was arrested September 17, 2011, for a violation of a protection order and posted bond on September 19, 2011.
On December 19, 2011, Harris moved to dismiss alleging a speedy-trial violation under R.C. 2945.71; the trial court denied.
Harris pled no contest and was found guilty, with a sentence including 180 days in jail (177 days suspended to probation) and a 45‑day GPS device requirement.
Harris filed a timely appeal on December 21, 2011; sentence stayed pending appeal.
The trial court denied the speedy-trial motion on the basis of continuances attributed to Harris; the record lacked journalized continuances.
The appellate court held the speedy-trial deadline was violated and reversed/remanded for discharge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Harris was denied a speedy trial under R.C. 2945.71	Harris	City	Yes; speedy-trial period was not tolled properly

State v. Armstrong, 2004-Ohio-726 (Ohio 2004) (speedy-trial time tolled by jail days; strict construction of deadlines)
State v. King, 70 Ohio St.3d 158 (Ohio 1994) (sua sponte continuances tolled time only with journalized entries)
State v. Berner, 2002-Ohio-3024 (9th Dist.) (standard for reviewing speedy-trial claims; de novo for law; factual findings reviewed for clear error)
Brecksville v. Cook, 75 Ohio St.3d 53 (Ohio 1996) (strict construction of speedy-trial deadlines; tolling rules)
State v. Lee, 48 Ohio St.2d 208 (1976) (requirements for continuances and tolling given by statute)
Aurora v. Patrick, 61 Ohio St.2d 107 (Ohio 1980) (parsing continuances and tolling mechanics under R.C. 2945.72)
State v. Bumbalough, 81 Ohio App.3d 408 (9th Dist. 1992) (continuances attributable to defendant may toll time even without journal entry)
State v. Berner, 9th Dist. No. 3275-M, 2002-Ohio-3024 (9th Dist. 2002) (analysis of speedy-trial timelines and tolling)