State v. Tatum
2011 Ohio 3005
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Indicted in Feb. 2011? No. Actually March 2008 original indictment for March 6, 2008 incident; later dismissed May 13, 2008 and reindicted Feb. 3, 2010 with same charges.
- Tatum was held in custody at times, with a federal detainer, affecting speedy-trial calculation.
- Original indictment dismissed without prejudice due to federal custody; charges refiled after relocation to halfway house.
- Trial court denied motion to dismiss for speedy trial; trial proceeded March 29–April 8, 2010 with jury verdict on seven counts.
- Convictions encompassed possession of multiple controlled substances (crack cocaine, cocaine, MDMA, BZP, methamphetamine) and weapon under disability.
- Court sentenced to twenty-year total term, with some counts running consecutively to others.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Speedy-trial compliance under RC 2945.71 et seq. | Tatum claims two-year delay violated speedy-trial rights. | State argues tolling/triple-count and no due-process violation. | No speedy-trial violation; tolling and triple-count applied; delay justified. |
| Motion to strike testimony and mistrial denial. | Lee’s consent-to-search testimony should have been struck; Lentz’s testimony warranted mistrial. | Court properly allowed rebuttal and did not prejudice defendant. | No abuse of discretion; evidence properly admitted and no mistrial required. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for possession and bulk MDMA/BZP. | State proved possession of bag and contents; bulk amounts established. | Evidence insufficient to prove possession and bulk quantities. | Sufficient evidence supported conviction on all counts. |
| Consecutive sentences for allied offenses. | Counts not allied; consecutive terms permissible under statute. | Offenses were same conduct/merged. | Not error; offenses not Allied; consecutive sentences proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. King, 2007-Ohio-335 (3d Dist. 2007) (standard for calculating speedy-trial days; triple-count considerations mentioned)
- State v. Maisch, 2007-Ohio-6230 (3d Dist. 2007) (timeline tolling when reindicted after dismissal; triple-count discussions)
- Luck v. Luck, 1984-Ohio- (Ohio Sup. Ct. 1984) (due-process delay test: prejudice then justifiable reason for delay)
- State v. Byrd, 2009-Ohio-3283 (8th Dist. 2009) (tolling continues when detainee not in jail solely on pending charges; triple-count considerations)
- State v. Azbell, 2006-Ohio-6552 (Ohio Sup. Ct. 2006) (reindictment tolling when original indictment dismissed without prejudice)