STATE OF OHIO v. THOMAS MARCH
CASE NO. CA2015-08-070
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO WARREN COUNTY
6/6/2016
[Cite as State v. March, 2016-Ohio-3288.]
RINGLAND, J.
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM MASON MUNICIPAL COURT Case No. 15 CRB 00770
Maxwell D. Kinman, 423 Reading Road, Mason, Ohio 45040, for defendant-appellant
RINGLAND, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Thomas March, appeals a decision of the Mason Municipal Court overruling his motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds after he was convicted of public indecency. We affirm.
{¶ 2} The parties filed an Agreed Statement of the Case prior to this appeal, therefore the relevant facts are not in dispute. March was arrested on June 12, 2015 and charged with public indecency in violation of
{¶ 3} On July 13, 2015, the grand jury returned an indictment charging March with two counts of public indecency in violation of
{¶ 4} Incarcerated in county jail since the date of his arrest, March was released on his own recognizance on July 20, 2015. He subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the misdemeanor charge on speedy trial grounds. In an entry dated July 23, 2015, the municipal court denied the motion. That same day, March entered a no contest plea to the misdemeanor charge. The trial court accepted the plea and imposed sentence. March timely appealed, raising one assignment of error.
{¶ 5} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶ 6} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO DISMISS THE CASE BASED UPON THE VIOLATION OF THE APPELLANT‘S RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL.
{¶ 7} March argues that the misdemeanor charge against him should have been dismissed because the state violated his right to a speedy trial.
{¶ 8} Appellate review of speedy-trial issues involves a mixed question of law and fact. State v. Redelman, 12th Dist. Clinton No. CA2012-04-010, 242, 2013-Ohio-657, ¶ 19. Typically, a reviewing court affords due deference to the trial court‘s findings of fact if supported by competent, credible evidence. Id. As stated, the facts of this case are not in dispute. Accordingly, we shall focus on whether the municipal court correctly applied the law to the facts. Id.
{¶ 10} A court reviewing a speedy trial issue must calculate the number of days attributable to either party and determine whether the defendant was brought to trial within the statutorily prescribed time limits. State v. Riley, 162 Ohio App.3d 730, 2005-Ohio-4337, ¶ 19 (12th Dist.). Generally, a person charged with a felony must be brought to trial within 270 days after the date of arrest.
{¶ 11} When an accused is held in jail on the pending charge in lieu of bail, each day is counted as three days.
{¶ 12} The procedural posture in the case at bar involves a unique application of the speedy trial rules. As stated, March was initially charged with felony public indecency and jailed upon his June 12 arrest. Just over one month later, the grand jury returned a two-count indictment reflecting the felony charge and adding a misdemeanor public indecency charge. Both were based upon the same set of factual allegations. After the felony count was nolled, March pled no contest to the misdemeanor offense.
{¶ 13} Typically, where multiple charges arising out of the same course of conduct are
{¶ 14} March submits that he should have been brought to trial within 30 days because the case eventually proceeded solely on the misdemeanor charge. Though his appellate brief does not contain mathematical calculations, we presume he arrived at this 30-day figure by applying the triple-count provision in
{¶ 15} March‘s July 23 plea was entered 41 days after his arrest. Omitting the two days during which the municipal court considered March‘s motion to dismiss, the total time period between his arrest and disposition was 39 days. See
{¶ 16} In State v. Fields, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA99-07-077, 2000 WL 342134 (Apr. 3, 2000), this court entertained an appeal involving a defendant indicted on a felony charge of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs (DUI). Id. at * 1. The state reduced the charge to misdemeanor DUI after discovering that one of the three prior offenses which underlay the felony DUI charge was not properly journalized. Id. Fields moved to dismiss on speedy trial grounds, arguing that he was not tried within the requisite statutory period for misdemeanor offenses. Id. The trial court denied the motion. Id.
{¶ 17} On appeal, this court considered the speedy trial implications of reducing a felony to a misdemeanor. Id. at * 5-6. We expressed our reluctance at placing an unduly
{¶ 18} Ultimately, this court upheld Fields’ DUI conviction. Id. We reasoned that a defendant‘s speedy trial rights are served if he is brought to trial within 270 days of the initial felony arrest and within 90 days of the reduced charge, whichever is earlier. Id. See also State v. Cattee, 14 Ohio App.3d 239, 242-243 (4th Dist.1983). Applying the holding to the procedural posture of the case, we determined that Fields was tried well within 270 days of his initial arrest, and within 90 days of the reduction in charges. Fields at * 6.
{¶ 19} These principles apply with equal force to the present matter. When March was arrested on the initial felony charge and incarcerated in lieu of bail, the deadline for bringing him to trial was 90 days after his arrest, or September 10, 2015.
{¶ 20} In sum, where a criminal defendant is initially charged with felony and misdemeanor level offenses and the felony charge is later dismissed, the defendant‘s speedy trial rights are served if he is tried within 270 days of the initial felony arrest and within the applicable misdemeanor time period following the reduction in charges. Here, March was tried well within these timeframes.
{22} Judgment affirmed.
M. POWELL, P.J., and S. POWELL, J., concur.
RINGLAND, J.