State v. Carter, 2009 Ohio 933 (Ohio App. 2/27/2009)
| Decision Date | 27 February 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 06-MA-187.,06-MA-187. |
| Citation | 2009 Ohio 933 |
| Parties | State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jason Carter, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Paul Gains, Prosecutor, Rhys B. Cartwright-Jones, Assistant Prosecutor, 21 W. Boardman St. — 6th Floor, Youngstown, Ohio 44503-1427, For Plaintiff-Appellee.
Attorney John P. Laczko, 4800 Market St., Suite C, Youngstown, Ohio 44503, For Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Hon. Gene Donofrio, Hon. Joseph J. Vukovich, Hon. Cheryl L. Waite.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Jason Carter (Carter), appeals his conviction in the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas for murder following a jury trial. Carter alleges the following on appeal: speedy trial right violation; plain error when the trial court permitted evidence of Carter's post-Miranda silence; prosecutorial misconduct; ineffective assistance of counsel; and his conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶2} On January 1, 2006, the slain body of Jamie White (White) was discovered along Salt Springs Road in Youngstown, Ohio.
{¶3} On December 31, 2005, both Carter and White attended a New Year's Eve party on Midlothian Boulevard in Youngstown at the home of Michele Mattison (Michele), Carter's stepmother. At some point prior to midnight both Carter and White left the party. White was never again seen alive.
{¶4} The police soon focused their investigation on Carter, White's boyfriend, and arrested him in connection with White's death on March 10, 2006.
{¶5} On March 16, 2006, the Mahoning County Grand Jury indicted Carter on one count of murder, a violation of R.C. 2903.02(A)(D), a felony punishable by fifteen years to life incarceration.
{¶6} On March 21, 2006, Carter appeared in court for his arraignment, pleaded not guilty, and was appointed trial counsel.
{¶7} Trial commenced on November 13, 2006, and on November 17, 2006, the jury found Carter guilty of murder. The trial court sentenced Carter to fifteen years to life imprisonment.
{¶8} Carter raises five assignments of error, the first of which states:
{¶9} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT AND VIOLATED HIS STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO A SPEEDY TRIAL BY DENYING HIS MOTION TO DISMISS DUE TO EXPIRATION OF SPEEDY TRIAL FOR APPELLEE'S FAILURE TO BRING APPELLANT TO TRIAL WITHIN THE PERIOD SPECIFIED IN R.C. 2945.71."
{¶10} In an attempt to avoid unnecessary repetition, the facts of this case are simultaneously analyzed under the law because many of the facts concern dates of filings, and the date of each filing presents issues for analysis under the law regarding tolling potential.
{¶11} Carter does not set forth specific arguments as to how the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss. Instead, Carter reiterates the procedural history of the case, and makes some calculations relating to speedy trial time. It is unclear from Carter's argument as to how he arrived at the conclusion that the trial court violated his speedy trial time because he only offers calculations totaling 48 days, and he acknowledges that his limited waiver and motions to continue (discussed below) tolled the clock. Further, Carter never asserts whether his speedy trial time should have been calculated under the triple-count provision of R.C. 2945.71(E), or whether the State should have brought him to trial within 270 days pursuant to R.C. 2945.71(C)(2).
{¶12} The State argues that Carter's trial was timely. The State correctly asserts that regardless of tolling events, the amount of time that elapsed between March 10, 2006, Carter's date of arrest, and November 13, 2006, the date of voir dire, totaled 248 days. Thus, even though many events tolled the clock, the State was still well within 270 days. The State also acknowledges that Carter failed to assert whether he benefited from the triple-count clock, but argues that "[e]ven on a triple-count clock, Carter's claim fails." The State asserts that there are only two periods of time not covered by tolling events, those being March 10, 2006 through March 28, 2006, and September 26, 2006 through November 13, 2006.
{¶13} Ohio recognizes both a constitutional and a statutory right to a speedy trial. State v. King (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 158, 161, 637 N.E.2d 903. Section 10, Article I of the Ohio Constitution and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution state that a criminal defendant has the right to a speedy trial. Klopfer v. North Carolina (1967), 386 U.S. 213, 223, 87 S.Ct. 988, 18 L.Ed.2d 1; State v. Selvage (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 465, 466, 687 N.E.2d 433.
{¶14} The statutory right to a speedy trial is embodied in R.C. 2945.71 to 2945.73. Because speedy trial is a constitutional right and a mandatory statutory requirement, the speedy trial provisions are strictly construed against the state. State v. Singer (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 103, 109, 4 O.O.3d 237, 362 N.E.2d 1216. Pursuant to statute, a person charged with a felony must be brought to trial within 270 days after the person's arrest. R.C. 2945.71(C)(2). However, each day a person is held in jail in lieu of bail is counted as 3 days, thus making the speedy trial time 90 days for a person who is charged with a felony and who cannot make bail. R.C. 2945.71(E).
{¶15} If the State fails to meet these time limits, then the case must be dismissed. R.C. 2945.73. After the statutory time limit has expired, the defendant has established a prima facie case for dismissal. State v. Butcher (1986), 27 Ohio St.3d 28, 30-31, 27 OBR 445, 500 N.E.2d 1368. The State then has the burden to demonstrate any extension of the time limit. Id.
{¶16} Statutory speedy trial issues present mixed questions of law and fact. State v. Hiatt (1997), 120 Ohio App.3d 247, 261, 697 N.E.2d 1025. Therefore, courts must "accept the facts as found by the trial court on some competent, credible evidence, but freely review the application of the law to the facts." Id. Courts must then independently review whether an accused was deprived of his statutory right to a speedy trial, strictly construing the law against the State. Brecksville v. Cook (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 53, 57, 661 N.E.2d 706; State v. High (2001), 143 Ohio App.3d 232, 242, 757 N.E.2d 1176.
{¶17} This court reviews a trial court's decision about whether a delay violated a defendant's constitutional speedy trial rights for an abuse of discretion. State v. Kuriger, 7th Dist. No. 07 JE 48, 2008-Ohio-1673, at ¶13, citing Selvage, supra, at 470. The phrase "abuse of discretion" connotes more than an error of law or of judgment; it implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. State v. Adams (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157, 16 O.O.3d 169, 404 N.E.2d 144. Furthermore, when applying the abuse-of-discretion standard, an appellate court may not generally substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. State v. Herring (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 246, 255, 762 N.E.2d 940.
{¶18} The police arrested Carter on March 10, 2006. (Carter's Brief, pp. 2, 8.) The day of arrest is not counted toward speedy trial time. State v. Catlin, 7th Dist. No. 06 BE 21, 2006-Ohio-6246, at ¶12-14, citing Crim.R.45(A) and R.C. 1.14. Thus, the speedy trial time started running on March 11, 2006. From March 11, 2006 to April 9, 2006, Carter remained incarcerated solely on the murder charge. Thus, the triple-count provision applies to this time period. However, as discussed below, several intervening events toll the clock during this period.
{¶19} Although Carter was arrested on March 10, 2006, he was not appointed counsel until March 21, 2006, which was his date of arraignment. Also during this period, Carter was indicted on March 16, 2006. R.C. 2945.72(C) states that "[a]ny period of delay necessitated by the accused's lack of counsel" extends the time within which the accused must be brought to trial, "provided that such delay is not occasioned by any lack of diligence in providing counsel to an indigent accused upon his request as required by law." However, in this case only 11 days passed, thus it appears that the trial court was diligent in providing counsel to Carter. Therefore, no time is tolled because there is nothing in the record to indicate that any actual delay was necessitated by Carter's lack of counsel, and Carter's speedy trial time should not be extended during the period of time preceding the initial appointment of counsel. See State v. Molina, 7th Dist. No. 07 MA 96, 2008-Ohio-1060, at ¶16-17.
{¶20} The clock ran until Carter filed a request and demand for discovery on March 28, 2006. This motion contained confirmation that trial counsel received an information packet from the Mahoning County prosecutor's office on this same date. This court has held that even where the State responds on the same day a discovery demand is filed, such a discovery request would toll the speedy trial clock for one day. State v. Catlin, 7th Dist. No. 06 BE 20, 2006-Ohio-6247, at ¶20. This court reasoned that the State's case preparation was delayed by that one day, which obviously represented a reasonable time to prepare. Id. citing State v. Sanchez, 162 Ohio App.3d 113, 2005-Ohio-2093, 832 N.E.2d 1215, at ¶13-16. In State v. Brown, 98 Ohio St.3d 121, 2002-Ohio-7040, 781 N.E.2d 159, syllabus, the Ohio Supreme Court held that a defendant's demand for discovery or a bill of particulars is a tolling event per R.C. 2945.72(E). The Ohio Supreme Court reasoned that "discovery requests by a defendant divert the attention of prosecutors from preparing their case for trial, thus necessitating delay." Id. at ¶23. On March 28, 2006, Carter also filed a motion to permit him to appear in civilian clothing, an additional request for discovery, and a motion for notice of intention to use evidence. On April 19, 2006, the trial court granted...
To continue reading
Request your trial