State v. Miller, 2012 Ohio 1823

The State of Ohio appeals a trial court decision dismissing Miller's indictment.
Miller faced a municipal court complaint for kidnapping and aggravated burglary in 2009.
Miller did not appear for the municipal court complaint; in 2010 a separate, unrelated Franklin County sentence occurred.
Miller served a request for disposition under R.C. 2941.401 on July 26, 2010; the municipal court complaint was dismissed August 9, 2010.
Miller was granted judicial release from the Franklin County charge on May 26, 2011; a grand jury indicted him in Athens County for burglary on June 27, 2011.
The trial court dismissed the indictment on September 20, 2011 for failing to commence trial within 180 days under R.C. 2941.401.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 180-day speedy-trial clock under R.C. 2941.401 tolled after dismissal of the municipal complaint	State argues clock stops after dismissal and indictment follows within period.	Miller contends clock continues regardless of dismissal; indictment beyond period.	Yes, 180-day period applies and was not tolled; indictment dismissed

State v. Hairston, 101 Ohio St.3d 308 (2004-Ohio-969) (R.C. 2941.401 not ambiguous; 180-day period governs incarcerated defendants)
State v. Sufronko, 105 Ohio App.3d 504 (4th Dist.1995) (de novo review of appeal for statutory interpretation)
State v. Jenkins, 2011-Ohio-6924 (4th Dist.) (context of R.C. 2941.401 interpretation in appellate review)
Bonarrigo, 62 Ohio St.2d 7 (1980) (speedy-trial concepts tolled after dismissal when incarcerated)
State v. Azbell, 112 Ohio St.3d 300 (2006-Ohio-6552) (speedy-trial clock between arrest and indictment based on restraint)
State v. Broughton, 62 Ohio St.3d 253 (1991) (timing between dismissal and subsequent indictment not tolled absent custody)