State v. MooreState v. Moore
- Reporters:
- , , ,
Thе question presented to the court in this causе is quite simple. As is shown by the testimony and stipulations by cоunsel, an indictment was returned in Hamilton County, Ohio, agаinst the defendant. There was a failure to resрond to that indictment after a bond had been рosted by the defendant. “While the defendant was frеe on bond he proceeded to the stаte of Florida (after posting bond to answer thе indictment in Hamilton County, Ohio), and there was incarcerated by a court of proper jurisdictiоn on another offense. While he was in prison in Florida, the defendant asked the Court of Common Plеas, Hamilton County, Ohio, for a speedy trial. The dеfendant now moves that this indictment against him be dismissed bеcause he did not receive a speеdy trial.
There is no procedure set up by which the Prosecuting *140Attorney or this court could enforce аny of its actions against the state of Florida оr force that state to release the рrisoner in question from its custody on the assumption that after a trial would be had in Hamilton County, Ohio, on the indictment in this case, the prisoner would be returnеd to the jurisdiction of the Florida court or pеnal institution.
There is an inference by counsel fоr defendant that if application had beеn made to the Attorney General of the United States, perhaps the defendant could have been released to the state of Ohio while he was still serving a sentenced imposed by the Florida state court, but the Attorney General has jurisdiction only in Federal proceedings. There is nо showing that this defendant was subject to Federal Court action, and if he was in the Federal Court in Floridа, it would still be discretionary with the Attorney General to release or not release a fedеral prisoner to a state court for trial оn a state charge.
The court cannot read into this motion that the Prosecuting Attorney of Hamilton County, Ohio, must set extradition procedures in motion when he receives a petition for speedy trial by a prisoner in a foreign jurisdiction. There is no showing that there was any applicаtion to the Governor of Ohio by the defendant thаt he be extradited to Ohio to stand trial on this eаse while serving a sentence in the state of Florida.
The court has reviewed all the authority рresented and is of the opinion that the motion herein is not well taken, and it will be overruled.
The following authorities were reviewed by the court in arriving at its conclusion:
Section 2963.05, Revised Code; Article I, Section 10, Ohio Constitution; Amendments VI and XIV, United States Constitution; State, ex rel. Lotz, v. Hover, 174 Ohio St. 68; State v. Doyle, 11 Ohio App. 2d 97 (Citing Crider v. Maxwell, Warden, 174 Ohio St. 190, and Partsch v. Haskins, supt., 175 Ohio St. 139); State v. Johnson, 13 Ohio Misc. 79; Section 2945.71, Revised Code, and Section 2945.-02, Revised Code.