State v. Kesler
2014 Ohio 3376
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Kesler was charged in Seneca County with violating sex-offender notice requirements and later with a separate felony for failure to provide change of address; he remained in jail after failing to make bond.
- The State and Kesler agree arrest occurred April 19, 2013; Kesler initially appeared April 21, 2013, and requested a 5-day continuance to April 26, 2013.
- Kesler waived preliminary hearing and bound-over proceed was sent to the Seneca County Court of Common Pleas; bond was set at $30,000 with no 10% allowed; he remained jailed when unable to post.
- An indictment for failure to provide address change was issued May 8, 2013 (felony, third degree); arraignment occurred May 15, 2013, but was continued to May 20, 2013 due to counsel unavailability.
- Trial date was set for July 25, 2013; Kesler filed a motion to dismiss speed-trial grounds on July 24, 2013; he was convicted after a July 25 trial and sentenced on August 22, 2013.
- On appeal, Kesler argues the trial court erred in overruling the speedy-trial dismissal and that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the speedy-trial period was properly tolled | Kesler argues delays were improperly counted or extended | State contends delays were tolled by defense discovery actions and other delays | No; some extensions invalid but trial date within permissible limits after proper tolling |
| Whether the discovery-related delay was properly applied to toll the speedy-trial clock | Kesler asserts no reciprocal discovery duty was triggered against him | State relied on discovery submission and Palmer to justify delay | Court erred in tolling based on lack of reciprocal discovery; however other tolls preserved timely trial |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not responding to discovery within 30 days | Kesler's counsel failed to respond to discovery requests | Reciprocal discovery duty did not apply since no discovery request by Kesler existed | No ineffective assistance; reciprocal duty not triggered by Kesler; defense counsel not required to respond |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Riley, 162 Ohio App.3d 730 (12th Dist. 2005) (mixed question of law and fact in speedy-trial review; defer to trial court on facts; law applied de novo)
- State v. Ramey, 2012-Ohio-6187 (2d Dist. Clark No. 2010 CA 19) (sua sponte continuances must be entered with reasons before expiration of speedy-trial period)
- State v. Mincy, 2 Ohio St.3d 6 (1982) (reciprocal discovery duties require defense demand; timing when triggered)
- State v. Daugherty, 110 Ohio App.3d 103 (3d Dist. 1996) (reasonableness of delay assessed per case-specific facts)
- State v. Athon, 136 Ohio St.3d 43 (2013-Ohio-1956) (public records requests may trigger Crim.R. 16 reciprocal duties when information could be obtained by discovery)
- State v. Palmer, 2007-Ohio-374 (Ohio Sup. Ct.) (reciprocal discovery duties triggered by defendant’s request for discovery)