State v. Vasquez
2014 Ohio 224
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- On Aug. 26, 2012 Santos Guerrero was shot multiple times outside an apartment; Nestor Vasquez (apartment resident) was arrested the same day after officers found a live round at his front door and gunshot-residue on him. The firearm was not recovered; ammunition and a magazine were seized from Vasquez’s apartment.
- Vasquez was indicted Sept. 5, 2012 for felonious assault and attempted murder (relating to the shooting). A second indictment for heroin possession based on drugs seized the same day was filed Nov. 21, 2012; service occurred Nov. 26, 2012.
- Trial began Jan. 14, 2013. On the morning of trial Vasquez moved to dismiss for speedy-trial violations; the trial court denied the motion and the jury convicted Vasquez of attempted murder and felonious assault with firearm specifications. He was sentenced to an aggregate 14-year term.
- Vasquez appealed raising two assignments: (1) statutory and constitutional speedy-trial violations, and (2) sufficiency and manifest-weight challenges arguing self-defense/Castle Doctrine.
- The court analyzed whether the triple-count provision (R.C. 2945.71(E)) applied after the Nov. 26, 2012 indictment and whether lab-confirmed drug evidence triggered a new speedy-trial clock; it also reviewed the evidence and the jury’s rejection of Vasquez’s self-defense claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Vasquez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Vasquez’s statutory speedy-trial rights were violated by the delay from arrest to trial | Time was tolled by discovery/continuances and the triple-count (incarceration) did not apply after Vasquez was served with the Nov. indictment because that indictment arose from additional facts (lab confirmation), so trial was within R.C. 2945.71 limits | Triple-count provision applied to all non-tolled days from arrest through trial (because charges arose from same incident), so the 90-day limit was exceeded and dismissal required | Court held triple-count did not apply after Nov. 26; drug indictment was based on lab results (additional facts) that reset the speedy-trial clock, so statutory speedy-trial claim failed |
| Whether Vasquez’s Sixth Amendment speedy-trial right was violated | Delay (141 days with 43 tolled) was not presumptively prejudicial; Barker factors weigh against relief | Delay was prejudicial and attributable to the State; defendant asserted right at trial | Court held delay (98 non-tolled days) was not presumptively prejudicial, so constitutional claim failed |
| Sufficiency of the evidence and manifest weight regarding attempted murder / felonious assault and self-defense claim | Prosecution presented eyewitness testimony identifying Vasquez as shooter, GSR on Vasquez, ammunition recovered; this sufficed to prove elements beyond a reasonable doubt | Vasquez testified he acted in self-defense inside his home (Castle Doctrine presumption); jury should have found insufficient evidence or manifest-weight error | Court held evidence was sufficient and the jury reasonably rejected Vasquez’s self-defense account; convictions affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (Sup. Ct.) (four-factor test for constitutional speedy trial claims)
- State v. Adams, 43 Ohio St.3d 67 (Ohio 1989) (subsequent charges arising from same facts are subject to original speedy-trial timetable when state knew facts at initial indictment)
- State v. Baker, 78 Ohio St.3d 108 (Ohio 1997) (clarifies when subsequent indictment restarts speedy-trial time: new facts or facts unknown at initial indictment)
- State v. Parker, 113 Ohio St.3d 207 (Ohio 2007) (charges from same incident with common litigation history count as incarceration on pending charge for triple-count provision)
- State v. Jackson, 10th Dist. No. 02AP-468 (Ohio App.) (procedural standard for counting speedy-trial time)