State v. KeebleState v. Keeble
OPINION
{¶ 1} Defendant, Bryant W. Keeble, appeals from an order of the court of common pleas terminating his community control status and imposing a term of incarceration.
{¶ 2} On October 13, 1999, Keeble was sentenced to four years of community control upon his convictions for passing bad checks. One of the several sanctions imposed was that Keeble obey all Federal, state, and local laws. He was told that any violation would permit the court to impose a prison sentence of up to forty-four months.
{¶ 3} In October of 2000, Keeble was convicted in Federal District Court for bank robbery and was ordered incarcerated in Federal prison. On March 25, 2002, Keeble filed a motion in the court of common pleas acknowledging his violation of the community control sanction the court had imposed. He also asked the court to allow him to serve the resulting prison term in the Federal facility where he was incarcerated. No action was taken on the request, possibly because Keeble had failed to serve a copy of his motion on the county prosecutor.
{¶ 4} On September 24, 2003, one and one-half years after he filed his prior motion, Keeble filed a motion asking the court to dismiss his alleged community control violation.
{¶ 5} Keeble argued that dismissal was required by
{¶ 6} The common pleas court held a hearing on Keeble‘s motion on the day it was filed. The court found that he had violated his community control sanction and imposed a nineteen month term of incarceration. The net effect of the court‘s order is that Keeble must serve an additional twelve months of incarceration after his release from Federal prison.
{¶ 7} Keeble, represented by counsel, filed a timely notice of appeal. His brief on appeal violates the requirements of
FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶ 8} “It is an error for the court to fail to refuse to dismiss a complaint for violation of probation when the defendant has substantially complied with the mandates of
{¶ 9} The IAD is a compact among 48 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the United States. Ohio adopted the IAD in 1969 and codified it at
{¶ 10} It is unclear whether Keeble‘s March 25, 2002 application, by its terms, triggers the requirements of
{¶ 11} The issue presented was addressed in Carchman v. Nash (1985), 473 U.S. 716, 105 S.Ct. 3401, 87 L.Ed.2d 516. Nash was on probation for a New Jersey conviction. New Jersey is a party to the IAD. Pennsylvania, also a party to the IAD, convicted him of a second crime some time later. The New Jersey court filed a detainer for probation violation with the appropriate Pennsylvania corrections officials. Upon receiving notice of the detainer, Nash sent a series of pro se letters to New Jersey officials invoking Article III of the IAD and seeking final disposition of the probation violation charge within 180 days. New Jersey failed to act within the 180-day window and Nash moved to have the charge dismissed. The New Jersey court denied Nash‘s motion and sentenced him to 36 months of incarceration.
{¶ 12} The Supreme Court examined the text of Article III and found that the term “untried,” when combined with “indictment, information or complaint,” refers to criminal charges pending against the prisoner. Id. at 724-725. The Court held that “[a] probation violation charge . . . does not accuse an individual with having committed a criminal offense in the sense of initiating a prosecution . . . [and] does not come within the terms of Art[icle] III.” Id. at 725.
{¶ 13} As in Nash, Defendant Keeble sent a pro se motion to the court of common pleas invoking the IAD. Contrary to Defendant‘s assertion, it is irrelevant whether this amounts to an effort to substantially comply with the IAD. A community control violation allegation lodged in the jurisdiction of a party to the IAD, like the probation violation in Nash, does not equate to a pending criminal charge. Therefore, it does not constitute an untried indictment that triggers the requirements of the IAD set out in
{¶ 14} The Defendant‘s First Assignment of Error is overruled.
SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶ 15} “The court erred in failing to dismiss the complaint for probation violation and revocation filed by the greene county probation department against defendant and failing to terminate probation to when (sic) there were continuos unexplained and unreasonable delays by the state in bringing a detained he (sic) before the court to constitute violation of due process mandating dismissal of pending unresolved revocation of probation proceedings.”
{¶ 16} Defendant makes several arguments concerning his right to a speedy trial. As a general rule the right to a speedy trial applies to the trial of pending criminal charges, not sentencing.
{¶ 17} Defendant first argues that the two-year gap between his guilty plea in 1997 and his sentencing in 1999 violates
{¶ 18} Defendant next argues that his statutory right to a speedy trial codified in
{¶ 19} Finally, Defendant argues that the several delays in this case violated his right under
{¶ 20} The Second Assignment of Error is overruled. The judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
Brogan, J. and Young, J.,