State v. HillState v. Hill
RAYMONE E. HILL, 1141 Tennyson Avenue, Dayton, Ohio 45406 Defendant-Appellant, Pro Se
OPINION
Rendered on the 15th day of May, 2020.
TUCKER, P.J.
Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} On November 18, 2018, Hill was issued a traffic citation charging him with driving a vehicle with expired plates in violation of
{¶ 3} On November 28, 2018, as required by the citation, Hill appeared at an arraignment and pleaded not guilty. The trial court then sent Hill a notice by ordinаry mail to 1441 Tennyson Avenue requiring him to appear at a pretrial conference on December 13, 2018. Hill did not appеar for the conference, and, as a result, an arrest warrant was issued. For reasons that are unclear,1 on December 20, 2018, the trial court withdrew the warrant. The record contains a notice, time-stamped on December
{¶ 4} Hill appeared at the pretrial conference. During the conference, Hill made an oral motion to dismiss the pending charges, asserting that he had not been brought to trial within the statutory speedy trial period. Hill‘s motion and the trial court‘s decision overruling the motion are sеt forth as follows:
THE DEFENDANT: Ok, on the record and for the record and let the record show on this date, January 8, 2019, in the Dayton Municipal Cоurt, I, the Defendant, Raymone Hill, I was served with a summons on November 19, 2018 pertaining to these minor misdemeanor charges that are рending for this court case. If a trial date does not materialize it will be scheduled outside the permissable [sic] time perimeters [sic] set forth in
THE COURT: Well you would be right except for the fact that there wаs a capias put out on you. When the capias was put out on you for not showing up to court that started the cloсk all over again.
THE DEFEANDANT: May I speak to the court?
THE COURT: Sure.
THE DEFENDANT: That capias that was put out on me it was sent to the wrong address. That address wasn‘t mine. I had no knowledge that the correspondence was sent to my residence or anything to that nature – so.
THE COURT: Well that was the last address we had for you. So we will get it set for trial.
THE DEFENDANT: Ok, thank you.
The trial court then set a January 15, 2019 trial date. The matter proceeded to trial at which Hill was found guilty of driving a vehicle with expired plates but not guilty of driving a vehicle with license plates from another vehicle. No fine was imposed, but Hill was assessed court costs which remain unpaid. This appeal followed.
Analysis
{¶ 5}
{¶ 6} A defendant establishes a prima facie speedy trial violation when his motion reveals that a trial did not occur within the time period prescribed by
{¶ 7}
{¶ 8} The State suggests that the time between December 13, 2018 (the date Hill failed to appear) until January 8, 2019 (the date of the pretrial conference) was appropriately counted against Hill, making the January 15, 2019 trial timely. This may be so, but the trial court, by summarily overruling Hill‘s motion with the comment (made without evidentiary support) that the Dеcember 13, 2018 pretrial notice was sent to “the last address we had for you[,]” acted to relieve the State from its burden to еstablish that the speedy trial time had been extended under
{¶ 9} The remedy for this misstep is to remand the case for an evidentiary hеaring to determine the fault for Hill‘s failure to attend the December 13 pretrial conference.
Conclusion
{¶ 10} For the indicated reasons, the trial court‘s judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Copies sent to:
Matthew Kortjohn
Raymone E. Hill
Hon. Daniel G. Gehres