State v. Holden, 2016 Ohio 7042

Eric Holden was charged by complaint with third-degree misdemeanor solicitation (R.C. 2907.24(A)) after an undercover officer alleged Holden solicited sexual activity for hire in an online-ad encounter.
Holden filed multiple pretrial motions: three motions to dismiss (challenging complaint sufficiency and speedy‑trial), motions for discovery and bill of particulars, and a motion to suppress which he later withdrew after resolving issues with the state.
The trial court overruled Holden’s motions to dismiss and denied his speedy‑trial claim after finding tolling and express waivers kept the case within R.C. 2945.71 limits.
On January 6, 2016, Holden entered a no‑contest plea; the court found him guilty based on the facts alleged in the complaint.
Holden appealed, arguing (1) the complaint was legally insufficient to invoke municipal‑court jurisdiction, (2) his speedy‑trial rights were violated, and (3) the trial court erred in finding him guilty following a no‑contest plea.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Complaint sufficiency to invoke jurisdiction	Complaint tracked statute and alleged solicitation of an adult to engage in sexual activity for hire	Complaint failed to allege the specific conduct elements (e.g., enticed/urged/asked) and omitted R.C. 2907.24(E) definition	Complaint was sufficient; tracking statutory language adequately alleges elements
Whether R.C. 2907.24(E) must be pleaded	State need not plead statutory definition of “sexual activity for hire” in complaint	Defendant argued omission of §2907.24(E) meant an element was missing	§2907.24(E) is definitional, not an extra element; not required in complaint
Speedy‑trial claim under R.C. 2945.71	State maintained time was tolled by defendant’s motions and waivers, leaving only nine days attributable to state	Holden contended he was not brought to trial within statutory 45 days	Court held tolled periods and express waivers kept the prosecution within the statutory speedy‑trial period
Validity of guilty finding after no‑contest plea	Complaint’s factual allegations supported solicitation; a no‑contest plea admits truth of complaint facts	Holden argued complaint lacked factual allegation of an agreement to exchange sexual activity for value, so conviction improper	No‑contest plea admits complaint facts; complaint alleged solicitation for hire, so conviction was proper

State v. Mbodji, 951 N.E.2d 1025 (Ohio 2011) (complaint requirements under Crim.R. 3 invoke municipal‑court jurisdiction)
State v. Buehner, 853 N.E.2d 1162 (Ohio 2006) (sufficiency of complaint and notice to defendant)
State v. Bird, 692 N.E.2d 1013 (Ohio 1998) (no‑contest plea admits truth of complaint allegations and forecloses factual challenges)
State v. King, 637 N.E.2d 903 (Ohio 1994) (validity of express waiver of speedy‑trial rights)
State v. Swann, 753 N.E.2d 984 (Ohio App. 2001) (definition vs. pleading of statutory elements)