State v. Lear, 2016 Ohio 2675

In Jan 2013 Lear was caught shoplifting at a Newark Walmart and charged with misdemeanor theft. A jury trial was scheduled but Lear repeatedly failed to appear; bench warrants issued.
Lear later was incarcerated on a separate felony sentence; while imprisoned he submitted an ODRC "request for final disposition" form (dated April 4, 2014) to prison records identifying the county, city and the specific case number and asking that outstanding charges be disposed under R.C. 2941.401. The form was filed in the records office on April 10, 2014.
ODRC sent a letter to the Newark Police Department on April 15, 2014 seeking information about Lear’s warrant status; no detainer action or further prosecution steps are shown in the record.
Lear completed his felony term in July 2015 and was returned on the active municipal-court warrant in late July 2015; he moved to dismiss the theft charge on speedy-trial grounds under R.C. 2941.401 on Sept. 10, 2015.
The municipal court summarily denied the motion (reasoning Lear had not complied with statutory notice requirements because the State was not timely notified), convicted Lear on a no-contest plea and sentenced him to 30 days jail.
The Fifth District reversed: it held Lear satisfied R.C. 2941.401 by delivering the written request to the warden/records office (received Apr. 10, 2014), so the 180-day speedy-trial period ran and the prosecution (filed/tried after that period) was barred; the court dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Lear complied with R.C. 2941.401 ("causes to be delivered") so that the 180-day speedy-trial clock began	State: Lear did not strictly comply; the prison’s paperwork/letter shows the request was only an initial inquiry and the warden lacked official knowledge of a pending untried complaint, so statute was not triggered	Lear: Submission of the ODRC form (with county, city, and exact case number) to prison records/warden satisfied the requirement to cause written notice and request to be delivered	Held: Lear complied by delivering the written request to prison records (received Apr. 10, 2014); warden’s failure to forward is charged to the State and the 180-day clock ran from that date; dismissal required
Whether the trial court erred by denying an evidentiary/oral hearing on the motion to dismiss	State: Summary denial appropriate because statutory requirements not met and no disputed material facts requiring hearing	Lear: Court abused discretion by denying hearing when factual compliance with statute was contested	Held: Moot (court reversed on primary ground), but Fifth Dist. treated the factual compliance as satisfied, rendering hearing issue unnecessary
Whether Lear was entitled to 72 days jail credit	State: Not argued in detail given denial of dismissal	Lear: With dismissal, alternative relief (credit) followed from conviction/time calculations	Held: Moot due to reversal and dismissal of complaint

State v. Hairston, 101 Ohio St.3d 308, 804 N.E.2d 471 (2004) (R.C. 2941.401 places initial duty on incarcerated defendant to notify prosecutor and court of imprisonment and request final disposition; purpose is to prevent state delay and secure timely resolution)