Goman v. Maxwell
| Decision Date | 13 May 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 38557,38557 |
| Citation | 176 Ohio St. 236,199 N.E.2d 10 |
| Parties | , 27 O.O.2d 130 GOMAN v. MAXWELL, Warden. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Bobby Lee Goman, in pro. per.
William B. Saxbe, Atty. Gen., and William C. Baird, Columbus, for respondent.
Petitioner in this action raises issues both as to his 1960 indictments and the 1962 information.
Petitioner urges that he was denied a speedy trial on his 1960 indictments, and that, therefore, he is entitled to release.
There is no question that there was a delay of some 26 months between the time these indictments were returned by the Grand Jury and the time they were served on petitioner. A detainer on these indictments was placed on him on April 3, 1961, but petitioner contends that he did not hear of them until July 1961.
As petitioner urges, even though he was imprisoned at the time these indictments were returned, he was still entitled to a speedy trial thereon. State ex rel. Lotz v. Hover, Pros. Atty., 174 Ohio St. 68, 186 N.E.2d 841. However, it has been held many times that this right is one which demands affirmative action by the accused. State v. Cunningham, 171 Ohio St. 54, 167 N.E.2d 897.
Thus, an accused either may lose such right by failing to demand it or may waive it by entering a plea of guilty to the charge. Crider v. Maxwell, Warden, 174 Ohio St. 190, 187 N.E.2d 875; and Partsch v. Haskins, Supt., 175 Ohio St. 139, 191 N.E.2d 922. Petitioner not only took no affirmative action to secure a speedy trial on these indictments but when arraigned on them pleaded guilty without raising the issue of speedy trial. He has by his conduct waived any right to release on this ground.
Irrespective of this, however, the delay itself in the present instance was not unreasonable. The term, 'speedy trial,' is one of indeterminate meaning, and whether an accused has been deprived of his right to a speedy trial must be determined from all the facts and circumstances in each particular case. Where, as here, the accused was in the penitentiary at the time the indictment was returned against him, a delay of 26 months until he was released did not violate his right to a speedy trial.
It should be noted that one of the primary purposes of the rule as applied to persons in the penitentiary is to prevent the state from returning indictments against one for crimes which occurred prior to his incarceration and for which he could have been tried at the same time he was tried for the crime for which he is presently incarcerated and not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Knox v. Maxwell
...922 (right to a speedy trial must be claimed at the trial level and failure to urge it is a waiver of the right); Goman v. Maxwell, Warden, 176 Ohio St. 236, 199 N.E.2d 10 (to the same effect); State v. Frato, 168 Ohio St. 281, 154 N.E.2d 432 (improper denial of transcript for appeal can be......
-
Village of Montpelier v. Greeno
...insist on * * * a speedy trial." See, also, Everhart v. Maxwell (1964), 175 Ohio St. 514, 516, 196 N.E.2d 589 ; Goman v. Maxwell (1964), 176 Ohio St. 236, 237, 199 N.E.2d 10 ; 25 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d (1981) 508, 511, Criminal Law, Section 286. A consistent result was recently reached by th......
-
State v. Henry
...pleaded guilty he did not raise the question of denial of a speedy trial. It is stated by the Supreme Court in Goman v. Maxwell, Warden, 176 Ohio St. 236, 237, 199 N.E.2d 10: 'Thus, an accused either may lose such right by failing to demand it or may waive it by entering a plea of guilty to......
-
State v. Kirk, 2007 Ohio 1228 (Ohio App. 3/19/2007)
...indictment must be raised prior to trial or it is waived. State v. Turner, 8th Dist. No. 81449, 2003-Ohio-4933, ¶10, citing Goman v. Maxwell (1964), 176 Ohio St. 236. See also, Crim.R. 12(C)(2) (defenses and objections based on defects in the indictment, other than failure to show jurisdict......