State v. Patterson
2018 Ohio 4672
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- William Patterson failed to appear for sentencing on prior Wood County charges; a warrant issued and he was later incarcerated elsewhere.
- On December 19, 2016 Patterson filed a written notice under R.C. 2941.401 (request for final disposition while imprisoned); the 180-day speedy-trial period began then.
- Patterson waived speedy-trial time in open court at an April 28, 2017 hearing, tolling the clock until June 2, 2017.
- Multiple continuances, a Crim.R. 14 motion, counsel withdrawal and reappointment, and other delays occurred between June and August 2017.
- Patterson pleaded guilty to failing to appear and was sentenced August 25, 2017 (journalized August 30, 2017); he appealed asserting ineffective assistance and that his plea was not knowing/voluntary because the speedy-trial period expired.
Issues
| Issue | Patterson's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not moving to dismiss under R.C. 2941.401 | Counsel should have enforced the 180-day rule; failure prejudiced defense | No speedy-trial violation occurred, so counsel’s advice was not deficient or prejudicial | Court: No ineffective assistance; no speedy-trial violation shown |
| Whether Patterson’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary given alleged speedy-trial violation | Plea could not be knowing if statute-based speedy-trial time had expired; dismissal should have been sought | Plea followed a valid waiver and intervening tolling events; plea valid | Court: Plea was valid; speedy-trial rights were not violated, so plea stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Hester v. State, 45 Ohio St.2d 71 (Ohio 1976) (tests whether accused had a fair trial and whether substantial justice was done for ineffective-assistance claims)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-part ineffective-assistance standard of deficiency and prejudice)
- State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (Ohio 1999) (application of Strickland standard in Ohio criminal cases)
- Ohio v. King, 70 Ohio St.3d 158 (Ohio 1994) (constitutional and statutory speedy-trial waiver must be in writing or on the record)