State v. Hawes
2012 Ohio 5409
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Hawes was indicted August 10, 2011 on two counts of aggravated robbery with firearm specifications for January 28, 2010 conduct while he was incarcerated.
- He waived speedy trial on September 14, 2011 and moved to dismiss with prejudice for speedy-trial violations, among other motions.
- The trial court overruled the motion to dismiss on November 29, 2011; Hawes then pled no contest to both counts on November 30, 2011.
- The State dismissed the firearm specifications and the court imposed concurrent mandatory sentences of four years on each count.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief; Hawes did not file a pro se brief, and the State did not file a responsive brief.
- The court affirmed the judgment, rejecting the asserted speedy-trial and sentencing challenges as lacking merit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Speedy-trial denial under R.C. 2941.401 | Hawes contends time ran under 2941.401 after incarceration and notification failures. | Hawes asserts the 180-day clock tolled and violated his speedy-trial rights. | No error; 180 days did not run since he did not deliver the required notice; case resolved within 180 days. |
| Mandatory sentence under R.C. 2929.13(F)(6) | Prior felony conviction required mandatory sentencing; record lacked details of prior offense. | The record should show exact prior-conviction details to sustain the mandatory sentence. | No merit; prior conviction existence suffices; statute unambiguous; deterrent concern not required to constitutionally sustain. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Stewart, 2006-Ohio-4164 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 21462 (2006)) (R.C. 2941.401 tolling when defendant requests final disposition; speedy-trial timing control)
- State v. Huber, 2009-Ohio-1636 (2d Dist. Clark No. 07-CA-88 (2009)) (180-day speedy-trial clock begins after written request)
- State v. Forster, 2008-Ohio-3709 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 22472 (2008)) (timing of speedy-trial calculations; tolling rules)
- State v. Hairston, 2004-Ohio-969 (101 Ohio St.3d 308 (2004)) (speedy-trial deadlines and tolling rules; statutory framework)
- State v. Kelley, 2012-Ohio-4623 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 25014 (2012)) (sentence review where jointly recommended; exceptions when not authorized)