State v. Pooler
2016 Ohio 5099
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On August 3, 2015, Jerrod Pooler was arrested for multiple motor-vehicle offenses including two OVI counts and was released on recognizance then remanded to jail on a $5,000 bond the same day.
- Arraignment occurred August 10, 2015; counsel was appointed and a September 14, 2015 trial date was set; Pooler remained in jail until mid-November 2015.
- Counsel filed discovery and pretrial preservation motions in September 2015; multiple continuances and counsel substitutions occurred thereafter.
- Pooler moved to dismiss for violation of his statutory speedy-trial rights on November 6, 2015; the trial court denied the motion at a November 12 hearing (prosecutor absent) and later released Pooler on recognizance.
- Pooler pleaded no contest to an OVI and to driving under OVI suspension on December 23, 2015, received jail time and fines, and timely appealed the denial of his speedy-trial motion.
- The appellate court reversed, holding the statutory 90-day speedy-trial period expired and the State failed to establish tolling for the critical pre-September 2, 2015 period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pooler was denied his statutory speedy-trial right under R.C. 2945.71 | State relied on multiple events and continuances to toll the speedy-trial clock | Pooler argued clock expired (90 days), tolling events occurred after the deadline and earlier continuances were not his request | Court held speedy-trial rights violated; clock expired Sept. 2, 2015 and State failed to show tolling for Aug. 4–Sept. 2 period |
| Whether the trial-court entry denying the motion to dismiss was a final, appealable order | State contended the notice of appeal was defective for not listing the denial entry | Pooler argued denial was interlocutory and the final conviction/sentence entry was appealable | Court held the denial was interlocutory; appeal properly challenges final conviction/sentence arising from the alleged error |
| Whether an arraignment continuance tolled time because it was requested by Pooler | State/trial court treated the continuance as tolling time | Pooler maintained record did not show he requested the continuance and ambiguity favors accused | Court found no record proof defendant requested the continuance; time charged to State absent a journaled reason for a sua sponte continuance |
| Whether time while defendant was held in jail counts triple under R.C. 2945.71(E) | State’s calculations implicitly used jailed days | Pooler argued triple-counting produced statute violation | Court applied triple-counting: 35 chargeable days became 105 days, exceeding 90-day limit; violation found |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Middletown v. Jackson, 8 Ohio App.3d 431 (12th Dist. 1983) (distinguishing interlocutory order from final appealable judgment)
- State v. DePue, 96 Ohio App.3d 513 (4th Dist. 1994) (speedy-trial computation governed by R.C. 2945.71 et seq.)
- State v. Singer, 50 Ohio St.2d 103 (Ohio 1977) (ambiguities in the record are construed in favor of the accused)
- State v. Mincy, 2 Ohio St.3d 6 (Ohio 1982) (when granting sua sponte continuance, court must journal reasons before speedy-trial deadline)