State v. Martin
2011 Ohio 6537
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- William Martin II was charged in seven felonies in Columbiana County and moved to dismiss on speedy-trial grounds.
- Trial was postponed after counsel withdrew and new counsel was appointed; both sides sought continuances, which the court granted.
- June 5, 2009 hearing with Judge Pike (authorized by Tobin) appointed new counsel; continuance granted to ~60 days for new counsel to prepare.
- June 12, 2009 hearing with Judge Tobin set September 21, 2009; later assignments moved trial to September 21, 2009 and then to later dates; suppress motion filed.
- September–October 2009: speedy-trial motions considered; additional continuances granted; trial date repeatedly reset through December 7, 2009.
- Jury seated December 7, 2009; no contest plea to several counts on December 8, 2009; remaining charges dismissed; court affirmed the speedy-trial ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was a statutory speedy-trial violation | Martin asserts a violation under RC 2945.71–73 and discharge rights. | Martin contends extended delays and improper continuances violated the clock. | No speedy-trial violation; timely continuances properly tolled clock. |
| Effect of judge substitution on the continuance | Questioned Sup.R. 36(B) applicability due to Judge Pike presiding. | Continues were granted by the assigned judge; Pike’s signing was for Tobin; any error waived. | Not a reversible error; continuances properly granted and clock tolled. |
| Whether continuances were properly granted in open court | Continues may have been sua sponte and improperly documented. | Defendant repeatedly asked for continuances in open court and they were granted by the trial judge. | Yes; continuances were valid waivers of speedy-trial rights. |
| Whether Sup.R. 36(B) issues were waived | Argues improper assignment of judges should affect speedy-trial clock. | Waived for not raising earlier; Tobin’s authority and journal entries support continuances. | Waived; not reversible. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. King, 70 Ohio St.3d 158 (1994) (waiver of speedy-trial rights must be on the record or in writing; sua sponte continuances require journal entries)
- Mincy, 2 Ohio St.3d 6 (1982) (necessity of journalized sua sponte continuances before speedy-trial time expires)
- State v. King, 74 Ohio St.3d 316 (1995) (relates to open-court waiver and continuance requirements)
- State v. Nottingham, 2007-Ohio-3040 (7th Dist.) (motion to dismiss tolls speedy-trial clock; timing of tolls is crucial)
- State v. McCall, 2003-Ohio-1603 (7th Dist.) (mixed law-and-fact review for speedy-trial rulings; defer factual findings)
- State v. Lautenslager, 112 Ohio App.3d 108 (1996) (triple-count provision begins at arrest date; specific clock start)