State v. Saultz
2011 Ohio 2018
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- State of Ohio charged Carl Saultz with five counts of non-support of dependents under R.C. 2919.21 after a 2007 grand jury indictment.
- Appellant was arrested in Franklin County, released, and instructed to report to Ross County within five days; he did not report.
- Reciprocal discovery request was made at arraignment; appellant did not respond timely.
- A new Ross County indictment re-stated the five charges in August 2008 after initial proceedings and a prior dismissal of a 2007 case.
- Appellant entered no contest pleas on December 18, 2008; trial court found him guilty and sentenced concurrent six-month terms on all counts.
- The trial court overruled motions to dismiss based on speedy-trial violations, and the issue was appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly denied dismissal for speedy-trial violations | Saultz | Saultz | Speedy-trial time tolled; no error in denial. |
| Whether defense counsel’s handling of reciprocal discovery caused ineffective assistance | Saultz | Saultz | No ineffective assistance; no prejudice shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Palmer, 112 Ohio St.3d 457 (2007-Ohio-374) (reciprocal discovery response tolls speedy-trial time; thirty-day benchmark)
- State v. Miller, 2008-Ohio-1002 (2008-Ohio-1002) (no presumed prejudice for failure to respond to discovery; tolling not automatically imputable)
- State v. Howes, 2010-Ohio-421 (2010-Ohio-421) ( Summit N/A; analysis of tolling and speedy-trial considerations)
- State v. Hawk, 2009-Ohio-1955 (2009-Ohio-1955) (discussion of reasonable time to respond to discovery; cited in Palmer context)