2020 Ohio 893
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background:
- William Stoddard was indicted for third-degree burglary after an arrest on November 6, 2017; he pleaded not guilty and was released on bond but the bond was revoked after a failure to appear and a capias issued.
- He was re-arrested and the speedy-trial clock restarted the day after re-arrest (August 24, 2018); he remained in custody for much of the contested period.
- Counsel withdrew on the originally scheduled October 11, 2018 trial date; new counsel entered an appearance on October 19, 2018 and requested discovery; discovery was completed November 7, 2018.
- Trial was set for November 27, 2018 but the court continued the trial to January 8, 2019, citing a scheduling conflict with another case; the record later suggested that the other defendant had pleaded guilty before the court continued Stoddard’s trial.
- Stoddard moved to dismiss for violation of the speedy-trial statute on January 8, 2019; the trial court denied the motion, the case proceeded to trial in March 2019 resulting in conviction, and Stoddard appealed.
- The Ninth District reversed and vacated the conviction, holding the November 27–January 8 continuance did not toll speedy-trial time because there was no legitimate, journalized reason nor an otherwise record-demonstrated reasonableness for the court’s sua sponte continuance.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Stoddard) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the delay violated the statutory speedy-trial period (R.C. 2945.71) | Time from re-arrest (Aug 24) through Oct 1 and from Nov 7 to Jan 8 counted (with triple-counting for pretrial custody), yielding >270 days; the Nov 27–Jan 8 continuance did not toll because defendant did not request it and the court’s stated scheduling conflict was factually unsupported. | Time was tolled: (1) period when defendant lacked counsel tolled under R.C. 2945.72(C); (2) the November continuance was reasonable and properly tolled the speedy-trial clock (defense acquiesced or requested the continuance). | Reversed. The court held the November 27–January 8 continuance did not extend speedy-trial time because the court provided no legitimate, journalized reason and the record did not otherwise demonstrate the continuance was reasonable; speedy-trial violated and dismissal required. |
| Whether the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence | Conviction against manifest weight | Evidence supported conviction | Not reached on merits; held moot because conviction vacated on speedy-trial grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ramey, 132 Ohio St.3d 309 (Ohio 2012) (lists statutory tolling events and requires strict construction of speedy-trial exceptions)
- State v. Singer, 50 Ohio St.2d 103 (Ohio 1977) (speedy-trial extensions are to be strictly construed)
- State v. Mincy, 2 Ohio St.3d 6 (Ohio 1982) (a court continuance must be journalized before speedy-trial time expires and must state reasons)