2016 Ohio 3376
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Charles Tingler was indicted on nine counts related to April 2014 telephone threats to schools (inducing panic, disrupting public services, false alarms, aggravated menacing); several indictments were later amended and some counts dismissed before trial.
- Jury convicted Tingler of Counts 1, 7, 8 (felonies) and Count 9 (misdemeanor); he was sentenced May 13, 2015 to a total of four years in prison.
- Sentencing entry omitted a specific calculation of jail-time credit for pretrial confinement and imposed restitution amounts though the court had said it would set restitution for a hearing.
- Tingler moved to dismiss on speedy-trial grounds arguing written time waivers he signed did not apply to post-indictment amendments; he also raised ineffective-assistance claims against three appointed attorneys.
- The Sixth District affirmed convictions in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing to (1) include jail-time credit and (2) hold a hearing (or otherwise adjudicate) restitution.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Tingler's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jail-time credit calculation | Court’s omission can be corrected by corrections authorities; sentence stands | Trial court failed to specify days of pretrial confinement in the sentencing entry | Trial court erred; resentencing/remand to include specific jail-time credit |
| Restitution ordered without hearing | Restitution amounts were proper or agreed | No hearing held and record shows no agreement on amounts; defendant entitled to opportunity to dispute | Court erred; must hold restitution hearing (or otherwise establish agreement) on remand |
| Speedy-trial after indictment amendments | Waivers signed to original indictment cover amendments that do not change name/identity of crimes; delays not prejudicial | Waivers did not apply to amended indictments (particularly where charges changed); speedy-trial right violated | Waivers applied to amendments that only reduced penalties; amended counts that changed the crime were dismissed so speedy-trial claim fails; no violation found |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Attorneys’ conduct fell within reasonable representation; no showing of prejudice | Multiple appointed attorneys failed to challenge defective indictments and caused delay/prejudice | Claim not proven; no ineffective assistance shown because defendant did not demonstrate resulting prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Collier, 184 Ohio App.3d 247 (trial court must include jail-time credit in sentencing entry; omission is plain error)
- State v. O’Brien, 34 Ohio St.3d 7 (written, knowing, voluntary speedy-trial waiver)
- State v. Adams, 43 Ohio St.3d 67 (defendant must understand nature and extent of waiver; impairment of defense central to speedy-trial interests)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (speedy-trial balancing test; prejudice to defense is critical)
- State v. Davis, 121 Ohio St.3d 239 (amendment increasing degree/penalty that prejudices defendant not permitted)
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Strickland/Bradley standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Toledo v. Sauger, 179 Ohio App.3d 285 (filing a motion to dismiss on speedy-trial grounds revokes prior waivers)
- State v. Campbell, 150 Ohio App.3d 90 (waiver of speedy-trial rights as to original charge can relate to properly amended charge)