State v. Jones, 2019 Ohio 783

Derielle Jones was arrested Oct. 27, 2016 for a series of ATM “smash and grab” thefts; two related indictments followed: CR-16-611444 (32 counts, Nov. 16, 2016) and CR-17-613257 (102 counts, Mar. 28, 2017).
The first case (611444) was dismissed without prejudice on Apr. 4, 2017 and the second case (613257) re‑indicted many of the same incidents plus additional incidents discovered during the investigation.
Jones was arraigned in 613257 on Apr. 4, 2017; a jury trial began May 15, 2017, and Jones pled guilty mid‑trial on May 17, 2017 pursuant to a plea agreement; the court imposed an aggregate 18‑year prison term on June 26, 2017.
On appeal Jones argued (1) statutory speedy‑trial rights were violated because 200 days elapsed from arrest to trial, and (2) trial counsel was ineffective for not moving to dismiss on speedy‑trial grounds.
The court examined whether tolling events in the first indictment applied to the second (re‑indicted) case and whether any delay was attributable to the defense (notably failure to respond to reciprocal discovery).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether statutory speedy‑trial time was violated	State: tolling events from 611444 apply to 613257; Baker exception applies because new charges arose from facts discovered after the first indictment	Jones: 613257 stands alone; tolling events in 611444 do not carry over, producing a speedy‑trial violation (200 days)	No violation: tolling carried over; moreover defense neglect (failure to respond to reciprocal discovery) tolled time and Baker exception applied for newly discovered incidents
Whether counsel was ineffective for not moving to dismiss on speedy‑trial grounds	State: even if counsel erred, no prejudice because speedy‑trial rights were not violated	Jones: counsel was deficient for failing to move to dismiss, which would have succeeded absent counsel error	Ineffective‑assistance claim fails: no prejudice under Strickland because there was no meritorious speedy‑trial claim

State v. Blackburn, 118 Ohio St.3d 163 (2008) (periods of delay from motions in a prior related case may apply to subsequent related indictments)
State v. Baker, 78 Ohio St.3d 108 (1997) (exception: subsequent charges based on facts unknown to the state at the time of the original indictment are not measured by the original speedy‑trial clock)
State v. Palmer, 112 Ohio St.3d 457 (2007) (defendant's failure to timely respond to state's reciprocal discovery request constitutes neglect that tolls speedy‑trial time)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part test for ineffective assistance of counsel: deficiency and prejudice)
State v. Adams, 43 Ohio St.3d 67 (1989) (speedy‑trial waivers as to an initial charge do not apply to additional subsequent charges)