State v. Lee
| Citation | 357 N.E.2d 1095,2 O.O.3d 392,48 Ohio St.2d 208 |
| Decision Date | 15 December 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-28,76-28 |
| Parties | , 2 O.O.3d 392 The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. LEE et al., Appellants. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Ohio |
Syllabus by the Court
Where the court, pursuant to R.C. 2945.72(H), continues the date of trial of a criminal case by entry made prior to the expiration of the time limit derived from R.C. 2945.71 to a date two days in excess of that time limit, gives as the reason therefor 'crowded docket & judge's conference,' and notifies the defendant and his counsel of the court's action, entry and reasons, the reasonableness of the extension is satisfactorily evidenced by the failure of the defendant to object and to assert persuasively his basis for a contrary conclusion.
Defendants Andrae Lee and Richard Allgood, arrested for aggravated burglary on April 1, 1975, were held in jail in lieu of bond until their trial on July 2, 1975. On that date, defendants moved to have their case dismissed for a denial of a speedy trial, pursuant to R.C. 2945.71 and 2945.73, as more than 90 days had elapsed since their arrest.
A total of 92 days passed from the arrest on April 1 to the trial on July 2. On June 18, 78 days after the arrest, defendants were in court prepared to stand trial, but the case was continued pursuant to the following court order:
'* * * for good cause shown; crowded docket & judge's conference(,) case continued for jury trial to July 2, 1975 * * *.'
The motions for discharge were overruled, and defendants were subsequently convicted of the charges of aggravated burglary. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of conviction as to each defendant.
The cause is now before this court upon the allowance of defendants' motion for leave to appeal, and is limited to the speedy trial issue.
Joseph R. Grunda, Pros. Atty., Elyria, Thomas J. Dougan, Sheffield Lake, and Edward M. Zaleski, Lorain, for appellee.
Fink & Green, Michael Hennenberg, Zipkin & Associates Co., L. P. A., and Steven F. Mitchell, Cleveland, for appellants.
The General Assembly, in enacting R.C. 2945.72, recognized that strict time limits for trials cannot be imposed in all circumstances as some degree of flexibility is necessary. That statute provides for certain extensions, and reads in pertinent part:
'The time within which an accused must be brought to trial * * * may be extended only by the following:
'* * *
'(H) The period of any continuance granted on the accused's own motion, and the period of any reasonable continuance granted other than upon the accused's own motion.'
It is evident that to construe R.C. 2945.72 too broadly would render meaningless, and thwart the direction of, the speedy-trial statutes. Practices which are used to undercut R.C. 2945.71 and 2945.73 must not be used to extend the requisite time limits. State v. Pudlock (1975), 44 Ohio St.2d 104, 338 N.E.2d 524.
The record of the trial court must in some manner affirmatively demonstrate that a sua sponte continuance by the court was reasonable in light of its necessity or purpose. Mere entries by the trial court will ordinarily not suffice, except when the reasonableness of the continuance cannot be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Myers
...150, 399 N.E.2d 1220. Unlike the situations in State v. Mincy, 2 Ohio St.3d 6, 2 OBR 282, 441 N.E.2d 571, and State v. Lee (1976), 48 Ohio St.2d 208, 2 O.O.3d 392, 357 N.E.2d 1095, also cited by Myers, none of the questioned continuances was ordered by the trial court sua sponte. Even thoug......
-
State v. Helfrich
...reasonable and only when the continuances are made by journal entry prior to the expiration of the time limit. See State v. Lee, 48 Ohio St.2d 208, 357 N.E.2d 1095(1976), and Aurora v. Patrick, 61 Ohio St.2d 107, 15 O.O.3d 150, 399 N.E.2d 1220(1980). In the case at bar, the trial court foun......
-
State v. Adams
...continuances permissible to toll statute of limitations if journalized prior to expiration of statute of limitations period); State v. Lee (1976), 48 Ohio St.2d 208; State v. Harris, 5th Dist. No., 06-CA-40, 2006-Ohio-5999, ¶3, 18 (entrygiving reasons for continuance relates back to date co......
-
Bishop v. Warden
...some degree of flexibility is necessary, thus extensions of the time limits are given in certain circumstances. State v. Lee, 48 Ohio St.2d 208, 209, 357 N.E.2d 1095 (1976). R.C. 2945.72 provides an exhaustive list of events and circumstances that extend the speedy trial limit.{¶ 28} It doe......