State v. Miller
2017 Ohio 5728
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Alvin J. Miller was charged with reckless operation (minor misdemeanor) after an Ohio U.T.T.; he pleaded not guilty and signed a written speedy-trial waiver on Sept. 15, 2016.
- Defense counsel later filed a second written time waiver on Oct. 7, 2016 and requested continuances; multiple continuances were granted with journal entries showing new trial dates and notices stating “Time Waived.”
- The State moved to continue trial dates twice due to its witness (an aviation trooper) being deployed; the court granted those continuances and set trial for Jan. 9, 2017.
- On Jan. 9, defense counsel orally moved to dismiss for violation of the 30‑day statutory speedy‑trial period, arguing the waivers were effective only until the then-scheduled November 28 date and that the assignment commissioner told counsel time was not indefinitely waived.
- The trial court dismissed the case for violation of R.C. 2945.71(A) on Feb. 14, 2017. The State appealed, arguing the waivers were blanket/unlimited and defendant never filed a written withdrawal and demand for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Miller) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in dismissing for violation of R.C. 2945.71(A) | Waivers were unlimited; time was tolled; dismissal improper | Waivers were only effective until the next scheduled trial (Nov. 28); time ran | Reversed: waivers were unlimited; dismissal was erroneous |
| Whether the written waivers were unlimited or time‑limited | Waivers were blanket (no date limit) and thus tolled speedy‑trial clock indefinitely | Waivers were implicitly limited to the next scheduled trial date | Held waivers were unlimited in duration (no attempt to limit them in the record) |
| Whether defendant needed to file a written withdrawal and demand to reassert speedy‑trial rights | Once a written unlimited waiver is executed, defendant must file a formal written objection and demand for trial to reinstate the clock | Oral objections and off‑record conversations suffice to stop the waiver | Court held defendant bore burden to file written objection/demand; oral statements insufficient |
| Whether continuances granted for State witness deployment tolled time | Continuances were granted by journal entries and notices saying “Time Waived,” so tolling applied | Continuances were not properly journalized and thus should not toll time | Court found continuances were journalized and defendant did not object; time tolled |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ladd, 56 Ohio St.2d 197 (Ohio 1978) (speedy trial is a mandatory constitutional right)
- State v. Pachay, 64 Ohio St.2d 218 (Ohio 1980) (speedy‑trial protections and standards)
- State v. O'Brien, 34 Ohio St.3d 7 (Ohio 1987) (written or on‑the‑record waiver required; written unlimited waiver suspends right until defendant files written demand)
- State v. King, 70 Ohio St.3d 158 (Ohio 1994) (waiver must be in writing or made on the record)
- Brecksville v. Cook, 75 Ohio St.3d 53 (Ohio 1996) (speedy‑trial statutes strictly construed against the State)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (factors for evaluating Sixth Amendment speedy‑trial claims)