The case upon which Keller was tried was No. 9618, charging a sale of intoxicating liquors under date of July 5, 1930, in violation of Section 6212-15, General Code.
The fact that another proceeding was begun against Keller and an indictment returned by the grand jury, chаrging a violation of Section 6212-15, under the same date, as a third offense, being case No. 9664 in common pleas court of Stark county, in no wise prevented the trial proceeding against Keller under the charge in case No. 9618, the state еlecting to proceed in that case.
Section 13437-31, General Code, prоvides that the state may elect upon which of two indictments Or in-formations pending against a defendant it will proceed to trial, but upon trial being had the remaining indictments or informations shall be quashed.
Having so elected to proceed in case No. 9618, the rights of the accused arising in that case have not been invaded by sаid election.
The motion interposed by the accused at the close of the state’s case asked that the court “discharge him for the reason that hе was once in jeopardy under indictment for the same offense, and that more than three terms of grand jury of Stark county, not including the term in which the indictment is returned, have passed without him being placed on trial.”
It would seem from the phraseology of the motion that thе movant had in mind case No. 9664, which was the felony case, and in which Keller was indicted
*345
by the grand jury as for a third offense. Assuming, however, that it was sought by this motion to raise the question in the case then on trial, to wit, case No. 9618, that more than three terms had intervened between the filing of the affidavit in ease No. 9618 and his trial on said charge, and thаt he had not had a speedy trial within the meaning of the Constitution, we have arrived аt the conclusion that the motion was not well taken and that the trial court was right in оverruling the same. This court, in
Ex parte McGehan,
“To entitle a prisoner to such discharge, on the ground that he has not been brought to trial during the time limited by sections 161 or 162, he must mаke application to the court therefor, and if when he makes such aрplication, whether during the time so limited, or at a subsequent term of the court, the stаte is ready to proceed with the trial, or makes the showing specified in seсtion 163 for a continuance, he will not be entitled to be discharged.”
It seems apparent that the application for discharge must be made by the defendаnt.
The record shows that Keller appeared on the day set for the trial in сase No. 9618, and waived a jury, although it may be doubtful if he was entitled to one when the сharge was for misdemeanor only and not for a third offense. At any rate, Keller took part in the trial, through his counsel, by cross-examining the state’s witnesses, and upon the conclusion of the state’s case raised, for the first time, the question of any violation of his right to a speedy trial or his right to a discharge under Section 13447-2, Generаl Code.
Having himself taken part in the trial without objection, and having submitted himself to the jurisdiсtion of the court by cross-examining witnesses, and *346 awaiting the conclusion of the stаte’s case, his objection is made too late.
Nor does the record show that by being tried in case No. 9618 he was being placed twice in jeopardy, for in case No. 9664 no jury had been impaneled nor had the court taken any action in that case, although motion to discharge had been filed, under Section 13447-2, in cаse No. 9664. This motion had not been passed on by the court. There is no record in case No. 9618 that the accused had been in jeopardy at any former time, within the meaning of the law, on the offense charged in that case.
We do not find from this rеcord that any constitutional rights of the accused have been invaded in case No. 9618 by being denied a speedy public trial, or that he has been twice plаced in jeopardy.
Upon the entire record we fail to find any error justifying a reversal of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, hence the same is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.