State v. Thompson
2017 Ohio 8686
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Thompson was charged in Bellefontaine Municipal Court with eight counts of fifth-degree felony breaking and entering based on events in January 2016.
- While incarcerated on unrelated charges, Thompson delivered an R.C. 2941.401 written "notice of untried complaint and request for disposition" to his warden on July 6, 2016; return receipts show the municipal court and municipal prosecutor received it on July 15, 2016.
- On August 9, 2016 the State indicted Thompson in Logan County Common Pleas Court on the same eight breaking-and-entering counts; the municipal complaint was dismissed on August 16, 2016.
- Thompson moved to dismiss under R.C. 2941.401 on Feb. 15, 2017, arguing the State failed to bring him to trial within 180 days from receipt of his notice; the trial court granted the motion and dismissed with prejudice.
- The State appealed, arguing (1) the notice was not sent to the “appropriate” court/prosecutor (county prosecutor/common pleas) and (2) the court abused its discretion by denying a continuance.
- The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, concluding Thompson complied with R.C. 2941.401 by delivering notice to the warden and having it forwarded to the court where the complaint was pending; the State could not avoid the statute by dismissing the municipal complaint and later indicting on the same charges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2941.401 was triggered and violated when notice was sent to the municipal court rather than the common pleas/county prosecutor | State: Because the offenses are felonies, the "appropriate" court/prosecutor were the common pleas court/county prosecutor; notice to the municipal court was insufficient | Thompson: He complied by giving notice to the warden, who mailed it to the court and prosecutor where the complaint was pending (municipal court); that triggered the 180-day period | Held: Affirmed dismissal — defendant complied; statute applied to pending municipal complaint and the State could not evade it by later indicting on same charges |
| Whether dismissal of the municipal complaint after notice negates the R.C. 2941.401 protection (i.e., no pending charge after dismissal) | State: Once the municipal complaint was dismissed, no charge was pending and R.C. 2941.401 does not apply | Thompson: The common-pleas indictment was for the same charges; dismissing the municipal complaint does not defeat the earlier notice and 180‑day requirement | Held: Dismissal did not defeat the statute when the later indictment reasserted the same charges; applying R.C. 2941.401 prevents the State from delaying prosecution |
| Whether tolling events or discovery requests tolled the 180‑day period | State: Various events (e.g., discovery issues, appearances) tolled time so the State remained within 180 days | Thompson: No tolling events applicable; State had already provided discovery so no tolled days | Held: Appellate court found record did not support tolling that would save the State; trial court’s tolling calculation was not erroneous |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the State’s request for a continuance under R.C. 2941.401 | State: Trial court should have granted a reasonable continuance to allow prosecution | Thompson: No good-cause continuance was shown; continuance discretionary | Held: No abuse of discretion — trial court permissibly declined to grant a continuance |
Key Cases Cited
- Keenan v. State, 143 Ohio St.3d 397 (standard for appellate review of motions to dismiss and mixed questions of law and fact) (discussed standard of review)
- Hairston v. State, 101 Ohio St.3d 308 (2004) (R.C. 2941.401 protects incarcerated defendants from delayed prosecution and requires timely disposition)
- Unger v. Sarafite, 67 Ohio St.2d 65 (1981) (trial court’s grant or denial of continuance is reviewed for abuse of discretion)