State v. North
2017 Ohio 492
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- At ~2:12 a.m. on Aug. 18, 2015, deputy stopped Alphonso North for traffic violations; during arrest officer found cocaine and marijuana on his person. North resisted arrest and fled before being caught.
- An inventory search of North’s vehicle revealed numerous Walmart-tagged goods (pants, hats, keychains, etc.) and a wheelchair. Deputy Tanner suspected theft and asked dispatch to contact Fairfield Township Walmart.
- Tanner charged North in Hamilton Municipal Court (later bound to Butler C.P.): possession of cocaine (felony), obstructing official business (misdemeanor), possession of marijuana (minor misdemeanor). North remained jailed (could not post bond).
- Fairfield Township later investigated the Walmart items, confirmed a theft from its store, and filed separate misdemeanor charges (theft, possession of criminal tools) in Butler County Area II Court on Aug. 19, 2015.
- North moved to dismiss the common-pleas indictment for statutory speedy-trial violation, arguing R.C. 2945.71(E) triple-counting applied because the Area II charges arose from the same incident; the state argued the triple-count provision did not apply because the Area II charges arose from distinct facts discovered later.
- Trial court denied dismissal; North pleaded no contest and was sentenced. He appealed, arguing the trial court erred in denying the speedy-trial dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (North) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2945.71(E) triple-counting applies | Triple-count does not apply because North was held on charges in multiple jurisdictions once Area II charges were filed; therefore 270-day felony limit applies | Triple-count applies because Area II misdemeanors and common-pleas charges arose from same incident and share a common litigation history, so 90-day effective limit applies | Triple-count did not apply; 270-day period applied and speedy-trial rights were not violated |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. MacDonald, 48 Ohio St.2d 66 (1976) (triple-count provision applies only when defendant is jailed solely on the pending charge)
- State v. Adams, 43 Ohio St.3d 67 (1989) (additional charges based on same facts known at initial indictment are subject to same timetable)
- State v. Baker, 78 Ohio St.3d 108 (1997) (subsequent charges are not subject to initial speedy-trial timetable when they arise from different facts or facts not known earlier)
- State v. Parker, 113 Ohio St.3d 207 (2007) (when multiple charges arising from same incident share a common litigation history, pretrial incarceration counts as incarceration on the pending charge for triple-count purposes)
- State v. Taylor, 98 Ohio St.3d 27 (2002) (Ohio’s speedy-trial statutes are mandatory and must be strictly construed against the state)