482 N.E.2d 1337 | Ohio Ct. App. | 1984
Defendant, Douglas E. Phillips, appeals his conviction on one count of drug abuse, R.C.
"The Trial Court erred by overruling the defendant's motion for discharge due to lack of compliance with the statutory requirements providing for a speedy trial."
Defendant was arrested on July 16, 1983 for disorderly conduct. During a routine search of his person, officials found a substance thought to be methaqualone hidden in his clothing. Therefore, defendant was charged with one count of felony drug abuse, R.C.
The crux of defendant's appeal is that he should receive credit against the forty-five day period in which he had to be tried according to R.C.
The principal case cited by defendant in support of his argument is State v. Bonarrigo (1980),
The state, in opposition to defendant's argument, asserts that the forty-five day period applicable to the misdemeanor charge begins to run upon service of the summons, without regard to the previously dismissed felony charge. It cites State v. Sauers
(1977),
It is evident that this precise situation was not addressed by the legislature in the speedy trial statute. However, the construction urged by the state is clearly the more reasonable interpretation of the statute, and is consistent with the spirit of the speedy trial statute, which is primarily intended to minimize the restrictions on freedom and the general disruption of life caused by pending and unresolved criminal charges. See,e.g., United States v. MacDonald (1982),
At the time defendant was charged, the parties anticipated that he would be tried for a felony offense, which is governed by the two hundred seventy day speedy trial period of R.C.
Further, defendant has not been subject to any greater burden than is contemplated by the statute. He was tried well within two hundred seventy days from the filing of the felony charge he originally faced, and within the forty-five-day period which arose after the charge was, in effect, reduced.
Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the assignment of error is not well-taken and is overruled. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
MOYER and CASTLE, JJ., concur.
CASTLE, J., retired, of the Twelfth Appellate District, was assigned to active duty under authority of Section 6(C), Article IV, Constitution.