State v. Hyde
2014 Ohio 1278
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Defendant Tad J. Hyde was arrested June 14, 2012 for a Rite Aid robbery and later (June 20) charged for a separate June 11, 2012 Rite Aid robbery; indictments followed June 25 and July 2, 2012.
- Hyde remained in jail (in lieu of bond) throughout; he moved to dismiss for violation of his speedy-trial rights on October 11, 2012.
- The trial court denied dismissal, consolidated the two cases, ordered competency evaluations, and conducted continuances at Hyde’s request; Hyde ultimately pleaded no contest to one robbery on April 9, 2013 (the other charge was dismissed).
- The trial court sentenced Hyde to four years’ imprisonment, restitution, counsel fees, and costs.
- On appeal Hyde argued the trial court erred by denying dismissal based on violation of R.C. 2945.71 (speedy-trial), asserting he was entitled to the triple-count (3-for-1) rule for all pretrial confinement days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hyde’s speedy-trial rights were violated under R.C. 2945.71 | State: Time not expired because exceptions and tolling applied; multiple charges meant single-count did not apply | Hyde: State knew of both robberies when first charged, so triple-count applied to all confinement days, making trial untimely | Court: No violation; triple-count only applied for days he was held solely on one charge (June 15–20); thereafter days counted one-for-one and delays caused by Hyde’s motions tolled time |
| Whether two robbery indictments constitute a single ‘‘pending charge’’ for triple-count computation | State: Two distinct robberies at different locations/dates with different witnesses = separate charges | Hyde: Similar modus operandi and State’s knowledge of both incidents at initial charging makes them the same for speedy-trial computation | Court: Robberies were distinct (different locations/dates/witnesses); not a single pending charge for 3-for-1 counting |
| Whether Hyde’s own motions tolled speedy-trial time | State: Competency and other motions by Hyde tolled time under R.C. 2945.72 | Hyde: Argued motions did not justify continued delay to exceed statutory limit | Court: Motions (competency evaluation, continuances requested by Hyde) tolled time and were properly counted against him |
| Whether judgment entry must be corrected to reflect actual plea | State: N/A | Hyde: Trial entry erroneously recorded plea as guilty though transcript shows no-contest | Court: Affirm conviction but remand to correct entry to show no-contest plea |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Adams, 43 Ohio St.3d 67 (Ohio 1989) (additional charges known at time of initial indictment may be subject to original speedy-trial timetable when arising from same facts)
- Brecksville v. Cook, 75 Ohio St.3d 53 (Ohio 1996) (R.C. 2945.71 implements constitutional speedy-trial protections and must be strictly construed against the State)
- State v. Dankworth, 172 Ohio App.3d 159 (Ohio App. 2007) (discussion of triple-count application and effect on felony speedy-trial computation)
- State v. Kaiser, 56 Ohio St.2d 29 (Ohio 1978) (accused entitled to triple-count only when held in jail solely on the pending charge)
- State v. Baker, 78 Ohio St.3d 108 (Ohio 1997) (subsequent indictments not bound by initial speedy-trial timetable when they arise from different facts or state did not know facts at original indictment)
- State v. Palmer, 84 Ohio St.3d 103 (Ohio 1998) (R.C. 2945.72 enumerates permissible reasons to extend speedy-trial time)