State v. Mitchell, 62265
Citation | 605 N.E.2d 978,78 Ohio App.3d 613 |
Decision Date | 09 March 1992 |
Docket Number | No. 62265,62265 |
Court | United States Court of Appeals (Ohio) |
Parties | The STATE of Ohio, Appellant, v. MITCHELL, Appellee. * |
Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Pros. Atty., and David Zimmerman, Asst. Pros. Atty., Cleveland, for appellant.
Susan Grossman, Lyndhurst, for appellee.
The state appeals trial court's determination that the statute of limitations pursuant to R.C. 2901.13 had expired and the subsequent granting of defendant-appellee Gloria Mitchell's motion to dismiss. For the reasons adduced below, we affirm.
A review of the record reveals that Mitchell was indicted on two counts of theft in violation of R.C. 2913.02. The date of the offense on the first count was from February to December 1982. The date of the offense on the second count was from January 1983 to May 1984.
Mitchell was also indicted on a third count of trafficking in food stamps in violation of R.C. 2913.46 for the period of time July 1983 to May 1984. The three counts were premised on the allegation that Mitchell had received food stamps when she was not eligible for the benefit.
The administrative agency responsible for the benefits became aware of each of these violations on June 22, 1988. The indictment was filed on August 23, 1990.
On April 23, 1991, Mitchell filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that the statute of limitations had expired. This motion was heard on May 24, 1991, in open court. The trial court granted the motion after determining that R.C. 2901.13(B) had not been followed by the state, and dismissed the case on July 25, 1991. This appeal by the state, raising one assignment of error, followed:
The state argues that R.C. 2901.13(F) tolled the start of the six-year statute of limitations contained in R.C. 2901.13(A)(1) until the date of discovery on June 22, 1988, by the administrative agency. 2 Thus, the state believes that it had until June 22, 1994, to return an indictment.
The defendant-appellee urges this court to agree with the trial court's application of State v. Dauwalter (C.P.1988), 43 Ohio Misc.2d 17, 540 N.E.2d 336, in this welfare fraud case and reconcile R.C. 2901.13(B) and (F) as the Dauwalter court did. In Dauwalter, the fraud was discovered four to five months after the offense occurred, but the indictment was not returned until five years and eight months after discovery, and slightly over six years from the occurrence of the fraud. The state in Dauwalter, as in this case, argued that R.C. 2901.13(F) applied to toll the statute of limitations for a period of six years from the date of discovery, thereby rendering the indictment valid.
The court in Dauwalter stated the following:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Cook
...timely. {¶ 17} The court of appeals certified that a conflict existed between its decision and the decisions in State v. Mitchell (1992), 78 Ohio App.3d 613, 605 N.E.2d 978, an Eighth Appellate District case, and State v. Stephens (July 25, 1997), Clark App. No. 96 CA 0117, 1997 WL 435694, ......
-
State v. Tolliver
...Cuyahoga App. No. 75423, unreported, 2000 WL 193219; State v. Hollis (1993), 91 Ohio App.3d 371, 632 N.E.2d 935; State v. Mitchell (1992), 78 Ohio App.3d 613, 605 N.E.2d 978; Cleveland v. Hirsch (1971), 26 Ohio App.2d 6, 55 O.O.2d 26, 268 N.E.2d 600. 6 State v. Climaco, Climaco, Seminatore,......
-
State v. Charles Tolliver
... ... No. 75423, unreported; State v ... Hollis (1993), 91 Ohio App.3d 371, 632 N.E.2d 935; ... State v. Mitchell (1992), 78 Ohio App.3d 613, 605 ... N.E.2d 978; City of Cleveland v. Hirsch (1971), 26 ... Ohio App.2d 6, 268 N.E.2d 600 ... ...
-
State v. Hollis, 65186
...State v. Riggins (1980), 68 Ohio App.2d 1, 22 O.O.3d 1, 426 N.E.2d 504, paragraph one of the syllabus. See, also, State v. Mitchell (1992), 78 Ohio App.3d 613, 605 N.E.2d 978, and State v. Embry (Dec. 19, 1991), Cuyahoga App. No. 61835, unreported, 1991 WL 271464, citing Cleveland v. Hirsch......