State v. Wright
2017 Ohio 1479
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Emmanuel Wright was indicted in Erie County in Sept. 2012 on theft and passing bad checks; he pleaded not guilty and bond issues followed when he failed to appear at several pretrials.
- Wright spent much of the pendency incarcerated in other jurisdictions; on May 15, 2014 he filed a demand for accelerated speedy trial under R.C. 2941.401 (180 days).
- Multiple continuances were granted after the demand: some at defense counsel’s requests (change/withdrawal of counsel, investigation, motions filed), some for the court’s crowded docket and a state continuance when witnesses failed to appear.
- Wright executed a speedy-trial waiver on Oct. 27, 2014 for part of the period; evidentiary hearings and the trial were repeatedly rescheduled, and trial ultimately occurred July 7–9, 2015.
- Wright was convicted of both counts; trial court merged convictions for sentencing, ordered $3,215 restitution and 12 months’ imprisonment.
- On appeal Wright argued (1) statutory speedy-trial violation under Ohio law, (2) ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to move to dismiss, and (3) federal Sixth Amendment speedy-trial violation; the court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. speedy-trial (180-day) requirement was violated after Wright’s May 15, 2014 demand | State: continuances were justified; no statutory violation | Wright: continuances (by appointed counsel and court) rendered indictment void after 180 days | No statutory violation; appellant waived or tolled time; no plain error shown |
| Whether defense counsel (Dempsey) was ineffective for not moving to dismiss after 180 days | State: counsel presumed competent; no record evidence of unreasonable continuances | Wright: counsel’s inaction prejudiced right and required dismissal | No ineffective assistance shown; appellant failed to prove breach or prejudice; issue not supported by record |
| Whether Wright’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was violated by the 418-day delay from demand to trial | State: delay explained by defense motions, waiver, court docket, and state continuances; Barker factors not met | Wright: excessive delay (418 days) presumptively prejudiced his constitutional right | No constitutional violation after Barker balancing (length, reasons, assertion, prejudice); factors weigh against Wright |
| Whether the trial court lacked jurisdiction after expiration of statutory speedy-trial period | State: court retained jurisdiction because delays were attributable/tolled and no timely dismissal motion filed | Wright: indictment became void after statutory deadline | Court retained jurisdiction; dismissal not required and proceedings were proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance requires deficient performance and prejudice)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (four-factor balancing test for Sixth Amendment speedy-trial claims)
- Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (delay must be presumptively prejudicial to trigger full speedy-trial inquiry)
- Lott v. Ohio, 51 Ohio St.3d 160 (attorney competence and appellate review of ineffective-assistance claims)
- Hartman v. Ohio, 93 Ohio St.3d 274 (claims based on facts outside record should be pursued in postconviction relief)
- Smith v. Ohio, 17 Ohio St.3d 98 (prejudice requirement in ineffective-assistance analysis)