State v. Schwentker
2015 Ohio 5526
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- On Jan. 26, 2013, Schwentker was charged with OVI (first-degree misdemeanor) and failure to obey a traffic-control device (minor misdemeanor); he pled not guilty and executed a written speedy-trial waiver on Feb. 1, 2013.
- Schwentker moved to suppress evidence from a traffic stop; a suppression hearing occurred on May 10, 2013, with testimony and a dash-cam video admitted as evidence.
- The trial court took the suppression motion under advisement and did not issue a ruling; the video later was misplaced in another case file and remained unavailable to the court.
- On Mar. 28, 2014 (almost a year later), Schwentker moved to dismiss, alleging he was in limbo because the court had not ruled and that this delay prevented him from employment, licensure, and relocation.
- The trial court granted the motion to dismiss on Jan. 19, 2015, stating a speedy-trial issue arose from the court’s inadvertent loss of the video; the State appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is an appealable ruling on the suppression motion | State: trial court erred in granting suppression (record supports probable cause) | Schwentker: no ruling on suppression was ever entered, so nothing to review | Court: No ruling was entered on suppression; appellate court has nothing to review and cannot affirm/reverse that issue |
| Whether dismissal for speedy-trial violation was proper | State: dismissal was erroneous because Schwentker waived speedy-trial rights and did not timely demand trial | Schwentker: his motion to dismiss (construed as speedy-trial challenge) revoked his unlimited waiver; state failed to try him within statutory period | Court: Schwentker’s motion was properly construed as revoking the waiver; time ran from that filing and the State did not bring him to trial within 90 days, so dismissal was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (Ohio 2003) (appellate review of suppression presents mixed question; trial court findings of fact entitled to deference)
- State v. Mills, 62 Ohio St.3d 357 (Ohio 1992) (trial court as factfinder assesses witness credibility at suppression hearings)
- State v. King, 70 Ohio St.3d 158 (Ohio 1994) (written speedy-trial waiver is valid if voluntary)
- State v. French, 72 Ohio St.3d 446 (Ohio 1995) (ruling suppressing evidence can be appealed by the State as a final order under R.C. 2945.67/Crim.R.12(K))
- State v. O'Brien, 34 Ohio St.3d 7 (Ohio 1987) (withdrawal of unlimited written speedy-trial waiver requires formal written objection and demand for trial)
- State v. Sauger, 179 Ohio App.3d 285 (Ohio App.) (filing certain motions may be construed to revoke a prior speedy-trial waiver)