State v. Nagy, 2017 Ohio 639

Michael Nagy was charged with aggravated menacing (1st-degree misdemeanor) and criminal damaging (2nd-degree misdemeanor) after sending threatening text messages to his former partner and gasoline was found spilled near her water heater.
At arraignment Nagy pleaded not guilty, indicated he would retain counsel, and signed a written speedy-trial waiver after the court explained the charges and the effect of waiving trial time.
Trial occurred about 453 days after arrest; Nagy was not incarcerated pending trial and retained counsel during the delay.
A jury convicted Nagy of both aggravated menacing and criminal damaging; the court imposed consecutive jail terms totaling 270 days.
Nagy appealed, arguing (1) ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel failed to move to dismiss for speedy-trial violation, and (2) double jeopardy/allied-offenses error because the convictions should have merged.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to move to dismiss for speedy-trial violation	Nagy signed a waiver; even so, state contends waiver was valid and delay was tolled	Nagy argues waiver was invalid because court did not properly explain the speedy-trial right, so counsel should have moved for discharge	Waiver was knowing and voluntary; counsel not ineffective because a dismissal motion would have failed
Whether aggravated menacing and criminal damaging are allied offenses requiring merger	State argues offenses arise from separate acts/harms and can be punished separately	Nagy argues the threat (text) and the damaging are the same conduct/harm and should merge	Offenses did not merge: texts and pouring gasoline were separate acts producing distinct harms, so separate convictions/sentences upheld

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part ineffective assistance test)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989) (prejudice prong; reasonable probability standard)
State v. Sanders, 92 Ohio St.3d 245 (2001) (reasonable probability undermines confidence in outcome)
State v. O'Brien, 34 Ohio St.3d 7 (1987) (written speedy-trial waiver and effect of unlimited-duration waiver)
State v. Adams, 43 Ohio St.3d 67 (1989) (elements for knowing and intelligent waiver)
State v. King, 70 Ohio St.3d 158 (1994) (waiver must be in writing or on the record)
State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365 (2010) (R.C. 2941.25 and double jeopardy framework)
State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 (2015) (allied-offenses test: dissimilar import, separate conduct, or separate animus justify multiple convictions)