2012 Ohio 476
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Hemingway was charged in 2010 with multiple felonies in Cleveland Municipal Court for breaking and entering, theft, vandalism, and possessing criminal tools, based on a municipal felony complaint tied to an earlier case.
- While incarcerated at Belmont Correctional, Hemingway requested via R.C. 2941.401 that the warden forward a Notice of untried indictments and related rights to the court and prosecutor for Case No. 2010 CRA 003222.
- The Notice was sent March 1, 2010 to the Cleveland Municipal Clerk of Courts and the Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney; Hemingway was later arrested on April 14, 2010 and bound over to the Common Pleas Court.
- On April 29, 2010, Hemingway was indicted in CR-536518 for several counts; on June 23, 2010, a separate case (CR-538577) was dismissed and re-indicted as CR-539583 for related offenses.
- In January 2011, after discovery and a competency proceeding, Hemingway moved to dismiss under R.C. 2941.401 for speedy-trial violations; the trial court granted the motions.
- The Eighth District reversed and remanded, holding Hemingway complied with R.C. 2941.401, but that release from prison mooted the statute, shifting the framework to R.C. 2945.71 and tolling considerations, leading to a conclusion that the indictments should not have been dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2941.401 applies to Hemingway | State: R.C. 2941.401 applied because charges were pending when Hemingway filed the Notice. | Hemingway: R.C. 2941.401 applies only when prisoner remains in state custody during pendency. | R.C. 2941.401 applied; however, it was mooted by Hemingway's release. |
| Whether release from prison moots the 180-day clock under 2941.401 | State: protections continued despite release; clock runnable under 2941.401. | Hemingway: once released, 2941.401 protections end and 2945.71 governs. | Release mooted 2941.401; 2945.71 governs thereafter. |
| Whether tolling events sufficiently extended time under 2945.71 | State contends continuances were properly tolled because they were at Hemingway's request. | Hemingway: boilerplate journal entries are unreliable; if errors existed, remedy was to file a correction. | Most continuances tolled under 2945.72; precise days remaining were indeterminate, but not expired. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gill, 2004-Ohio-1245 (Ohio App.3d 2004) (compliance with notice requirements under R.C. 2941.401 where inmate forwards information to warden)
- State v. Smith, 140 Ohio App.3d 81 (Ohio App.3d 2000) (R.C. 2941.401 applicability to imprisoned defendants and notice timing)
- State v. Monroe, 2007-Ohio-1492 (Ohio App.3d 2007) (burden shifting when speedy-trial time limits are not met and tolling applies)
- State v. Beverly, 2005-Ohio-4954 (Ohio App.3d 2005) (tolling and speedy-trial time computation in extended proceedings)
- State v. Beckett, 2007-Ohio-3175 (Ohio App.3d 2007) (tolling analysis and status of speedy-trial rights during pendency)
- State v. Clark, 2008-Ohio-5208 (Ohio App.3d 2008) (considers tolling and speedy-trial computations in related contexts)