Willowick Bldg. Dept. v. Getachew, 2024 Ohio 5261

Lemma Getachew was charged with violating Willowick’s Property Maintenance Code for failing to address elevator repairs and building infestations at 30901 Lakeshore Boulevard.
The city filed a complaint on September 7, 2023; Getachew was served on September 26, 2023.
Under Ohio law, he was entitled to be tried within 90 days because the offense was an unclassified misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail.
The municipal court set trial for January 8, 2024, beyond the 90-day statutory limit (which would have expired December 25, 2023), and later refused to advance it despite the prosecutor’s request.
Getachew filed a pretrial motion to dismiss based on violation of speedy trial rights; the trial court denied the motion and Getachew was convicted and sentenced.
On appeal, the Eleventh District Court found the conviction must be vacated due to violation of Getachew’s statutory right to a speedy trial; there was a dissent arguing the extension was reasonable due to jury availability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the trial held within the statutory speedy trial period?	Yes; court’s extension was reasonable given lack of available jury and holidays.	No; setting the trial outside 90 days is not an allowed continuance under statute.	No; court failed to comply, conviction vacated.

State v. Cutcher, 56 Ohio St.2d 383 (mere scheduling of original trial date outside 90-day limit is not a proper continuance)
State v. Pudlock, 44 Ohio St.2d 104 (extension of speedy trial beyond statutory period absent proper grounds is invalid)
State v. Mincy, 2 Ohio St.3d 6 (after-the-fact justification of continuance cannot salvage violation of speedy trial statute)