State v. Scahel
2016 Ohio 18
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Mark Scahel was indicted in Cuyahoga County in 2005 (four counts) and 2008 (two counts) for criminal nonsupport; certified-mail notices to addresses in Ohio and Washington were returned unclaimed.
- Capias warrants issued when Scahel failed to appear; Ohio sent notices/detainers to out-of-state authorities (Washington and later Oregon).
- August 18, 2011: Kitsap County (WA) arrested Scahel as a fugitive; he refused to waive extradition, posted bond, appeared at several local hearings, and Washington dismissed the local fugitive charge in November 2011.
- October 9, 2012: Ohio learned Scahel had been located/arrested in Klamath County, Oregon and sent a detainer; no further follow-up by Ohio was shown.
- April 2013: Scahel voluntarily surrendered in Cuyahoga County and moved to dismiss on statutory speedy-trial grounds (R.C. 2945.71), arguing Ohio failed to timely secure extradition while he was in out-of-state custody.
- Trial court denied the motion (analyzed constitutionally); on appeal the state conceded more than 270 days elapsed if the speedy-trial clock began at Scahel’s 2011 arrest, shifting the burden to the state to show tolling under R.C. 2945.72.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did the R.C. 2945.71 270-day speedy-trial clock begin? | Clock began when Scahel surrendered in Ohio in April 2013 (state relied on Hill analogies). | Clock began at arrest in Washington on Aug 18, 2011 because Ohio initiated the arrest via its outstanding warrants. | Began Aug 18, 2011 (court adopted defendant’s position). |
| Whether tolling under R.C. 2945.72(A) applies because of extradition/pendency of proceedings | Ohio: tolling applies; it took steps (detainer, governor’s-warrant application) so time was suspended. | Scahel: time not tolled because Ohio failed to exercise reasonable diligence to secure extradition or follow up on the governor’s-warrant process. | No tolling — Ohio did not exercise reasonable diligence (lack of follow-up, unclear governor’s-warrant issuance/receipt). |
| Appropriate remedy if speedy-trial violation found | Ohio: continued prosecution or lesser remedy. | Scahel: discharge and dismissal with prejudice. | Remedy: convictions vacated and cases dismissed with prejudice; remanded with instructions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brecksville v. Cook, 75 Ohio St.3d 53 (Ohio 1996) (statutes construed strictly against the state in speedy-trial review)
- Butcher v. State, 27 Ohio St.3d 28 (Ohio 1986) (defendant establishes prima facie speedy-trial violation by showing >270 days elapsed)
- State v. Sanchez, 110 Ohio St.3d 274 (Ohio 2006) (R.C. 2945.72 tolling for extradition and related proceedings)
- State v. Major, 180 Ohio App.3d 29 (6th Dist. 2008) (failure to timely secure governor’s warrant shows lack of reasonable diligence; tolling not justified)