State v. Stansberry, 2023 Ohio 3212

Stansberry was indicted May 14, 2020 on 17 counts stemming from multiple vehicle break‑ins and related theft offenses (mostly fifth‑degree felonies).
While serving an unrelated Ohio prison term he delivered R.C. 2941.401 notices; the clerk filed them September 4, 2020, starting the 180‑day statutory period.
A pretrial was set for February 22, 2021; on February 17, 2021 defense counsel requested and the court granted a continuance, tolling the R.C. 2941.401 clock.
Stansberry was released from prison March 20, 2021; he later changed plea March 16, 2022, entered an Intervention in Lieu of Conviction that was revoked June 9, 2022, and was sentenced September 27, 2022.
The court imposed 12 months on each felony count, ordering eight 12‑month terms (seven B&E counts + one theft) consecutive for an aggregate 96‑month term; remaining counts run concurrently.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether R.C. 2941.401 180‑day speedy‑trial period was violated, voiding convictions	State: R.C. 2941.401 applied but was tolled by an express continuance; once defendant was released the general speedy‑trial rules govern	Stansberry: he properly invoked R.C. 2941.401 and the State failed to try him within 180 days after notice, so the indictment and subsequent proceedings are void	Court: R.C. 2941.401 was tolled by the Feb. 17, 2021 continuance; defendant was released March 20, 2021 (ending R.C. 2941.401 coverage) and fewer than 180 days had elapsed—no violation
Whether maximum and consecutive sentences were unsupported or contrary to law	State: sentencing court considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12, made and incorporated the required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings, and stayed within statutory ranges	Stansberry: record allegedly does not clearly and convincingly support maximum terms or consecutive imposition; sentences are disproportionate	Court: individual sentences were within statutory ranges and court considered required factors; court made and incorporated the statutory consecutive‑sentence findings (and cited multiple §2929.14(C)(4) bases)—sentencing affirmed

Hairston v. State, 101 Ohio St.3d 308, 804 N.E.2d 471 (Ohio 2004) (explaining purpose and application of R.C. 2941.401)
Bonnell v. Ohio, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 16 N.E.3d 659 (Ohio 2014) (trial court must make and incorporate required findings before imposing consecutive terms; no need for rote language)
Marcum v. Ohio, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (appellate review of felony sentences subject to clear‑and‑convincing standard for statutory findings)
Jones v. Ohio, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 169 N.E.3d 649 (Ohio 2020) (limits on appellate reweighing of R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 considerations under R.C. 2953.08)
Brown v. State, 98 Ohio St.3d 121, 781 N.E.2d 159 (Ohio 2002) (a defendant’s discovery demand tolls speedy‑trial time)
Arnett v. State, 88 Ohio St.3d 208, 724 N.E.2d 793 (Ohio 2000) (trial court has discretion in weighing sentencing factors)