State v. Williams, 2013 Ohio 950

Williams challenges the trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment for failure to bring him to trial within 180 days under R.C. 2941.401.
Indictment for aggravated possession of drugs and a forfeiture specification issued December 6, 2011, after Williams sent an inmate notice in September 2011.
Notice of incarceration and request for disposition were sent to the prosecutor, with Williams indicating imprisonment at Madison Correctional Institution.
The indictment was not served on Williams until roughly five months after it was filed; the summons and indictment were returned unserved with the notation 'in prison' on December 22, 2011.
Williams was released May 2, 2012, was arraigned May 3, 2012, and moved to dismiss the indictment on June 19, 2012, arguing the 180-day limit had expired.
The trial court overruled the motion, concluding Williams did not have pending charges in this case when he filed his request for disposition; Williams pleaded no contest and was sentenced to eight months.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether charges were pending at the time of Williams' request for disposition.	Williams argues charges from the 2011 traffic stop were pending and thus the 180-day limit applies.	State argues no pending charges in this case when Williams filed the request; Miller is distinguishable.	No pending charges at the time of the request; but dismissal is required on other grounds due to timing.
Whether Williams satisfied his duty under R.C. 2941.401 by notifying his place of imprisonment.	Williams satisfied initial duty by notifying prosecutor of incarceration, triggering the 180-day window.	Hairston requires no further diligence by state; the notice suffices for triggering, but not for dismissal here.	Williams met the initial duty by notifying; time began when indictment was filed and 180 days had elapsed by motion.
Whether the state's failure to timely serve the indictment violated the 180-day requirement.	Because notice was given, the state had a duty to serve timely, and failure to do so triggers dismissal.	Hairston limits the state's duties; the defendant must show failure to notify to trigger dismissal.	More than 180 days had passed when Williams filed the motion; indictment should have been dismissed.

State v. Hairston, 101 Ohio St.3d 308 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2004) (R.C. 2941.401 not a duty on state to locate defendant; initial notice by defendant triggers process)
State v. Miller, 2012-Ohio-1823 (4th Dist. No. 11CA26, 2012) (distinguishes Miller when charges are unrelated to prior notice; not controlling here)
In re Adoption of T.G.B., 2011-Ohio-6772 (4th Dist. Nos. 11CA919, 11CA920) (statutory interpretation guiding de novo review and plain-language approach)
State v. Fisher, 2012-Ohio-6144 (4th Dist. No. 11CA3292, 2012) (supports strict construction of speedy-trial statutes against the state)
Mathews v. Waverly, 2010-Ohio-347 (4th Dist. No. 08CA787, 2010) (statutory interpretation guiding application of speedy-trial time limits)
Cleveland Metroparks v. Signorelli, 2008-Ohio-3675 (8th Dist. No. 90157, 2008) (limits on when time starts under speedy-disposition provisions)