{¶ 1} Appellant, David Aderhold, appeals the judgment of the Medina County Court of Common Pleas. This Court affirms.
{¶ 3} On September 29, 2006, Aderhold filed a motion for discovery. The State answered Aderhold's demand for discovery on November 29, 2006. *2
{¶ 4} On December 5, 2006, the trial court sua sponte continued the trial until December 11, 2006. On December 8, 2006, Aderhold filed a motion to discharge the case pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 5} At the December 12, 2006 hearing, the trial court indicated that it believed that time was tolled for speedy trial purposes based on Aderhold's filing of his motion for discovery, pursuant to the Ohio Supreme Court's holding in State v. Brown (2002),
{¶ 6} Defense counsel inquired whether the trial court would accept Aderhold's no contest plea, but the trial court refused in the absence of authority that it had to take a no contest plea. Defense counsel asserted that Aderhold wished to take the case to trial. The trial court emphasized that it had not prevented Aderhold from doing anything; rather, it was defense counsel who refused to seek and present any authority which would allow the court to accept *3 Aderhold's no contest plea under circumstances where defense counsel was asserting that time for speedy trial had run and the Brown case was inapplicable. The trial court inquired whether Aderhold believed that its position impacted on the fairness of the system. Defense counsel informed the trial court that Aderhold was requesting that the trial judge, the Honorable James Kimbler, recuse himself. Judge Kimbler informed Aderhold that he was removing himself from the case and transferring the matter to the administrative judge for reassignment.
{¶ 7} On December 13, 2006, at 9:54 a.m., Judge Kimbler issued a journal entry in which he denied Aderhold's motion to dismiss on the authority of Brown, supra. On December 13, 2006, at 1:50 p.m., Judge Kimbler issued a journal entry in which he recused himself and transferred the case to the administrative judge for reassignment. On December 15, 2006, the Honorable Christopher Collier transferred the case to his own docket.
{¶ 8} On December 19, 2006, Aderhold filed a motion to continue the trial. On December 21, 2006, the trial court issued a judgment entry, approved and signed by both Aderhold and his attorney, wherein Aderhold waived his right to speedy trial and the court rescheduled the trial for February 12, 2007.
{¶ 9} On February 12, 2007, Aderhold appeared for a change of plea hearing. He entered a plea of no contest and the trial court found him guilty of aggravated burglary. The trial court subsequently sentenced him to seven years in *4 prison and ordered him to pay restitution to the victim in the amount of $11,902.91 for medical expenses and $4,016.96 for lost wages.
{¶ 10} Aderhold timely appeals, raising one assignment of error for review.
{¶ 11} Aderhold argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss. He further argues that his motion was never properly disposed because the judge who signed the journal entry denying the motion had no authority to do so, as he had recused himself from the case. This Court disagrees.
{¶ 12} This Court first addresses Aderhold's argument that Judge Kimbler had no authority to rule on his motion to dismiss because he had recused himself. Aderhold's argument is not well taken.
{¶ 13} It is well established that "a trial court only speaks through [its] journal entry[.]" State v. Overstreet, 9th Dist. No. 21367,
{¶ 14} This Court now addresses Aderhold's substantive argument that the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss. This argument, too, is not well taken.
{¶ 15} Aderhold was charged with a felony of the first degree. R.C.
*6"The time within which an accused must be brought to trial, or, in the case of felony, to preliminary hearing and trial, may be extended only by the following:
* * *
"(E) Any period of delay necessitated by reason of a plea in bar or abatement, motion, proceeding, or action made or instituted by the accused."
{¶ 16} The Ohio Supreme Court has held that a "demand for discovery or a bill of particulars is a tolling event pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 17} Aderhold was arrested on September 9, 2006, and held in jail in lieu of bail until December 12, 2006. Although the matter was scheduled for trial on December 4, 2006, the trial court sua sponte continued the trial until December 11, 2006. Aderhold filed his motion to discharge on December 8, 2006, ninety days after his arrest. As he was in jail during that time, each day counted as three, so that two hundred seventy days had elapsed for purposes of speedy trial calculation as of December 8, 2006.1
{¶ 18} On September 29, 2006, however, Aderhold filed a motion for discovery, thereby tolling the time pursuant to R.C.
Judgment affirmed.
The Court finds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common Pleas, County of Medina, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(E). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to appellant.
MOORE, J. DICKINSON, J. CONCUR