State v. Sauers
| Decision Date | 08 June 1977 |
| Parties | , 6 O.O.3d 87 The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. SAUERS, Appellant. * |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
The date from which the speedy trial provisions of R.C. 2945.71 begin to run for an accused whose original felony charge has been reduced to a misdemeanor is the date the summons was served for the lesser offense.
Peter D. Oldham, Pros. Atty., Akron, for appellee.
Dorothy D. Bergmann, Stow, for appellant.
In this appeal from a judgment of the Akron Municipal Court, the defendant-appellant, Mark Sauers, presents a single assignment of error which is:
"The trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to dismiss the charge against him."
The record indicates that the defendant was arrested on a felony charge, given a preliminary hearing, and then bound over to the grand jury after a finding of probable cause. The grand jury returned an indictment for a misdemeanor and the case was remanded to the Akron Municipal Court for trial.
The pertinent facts, as found by the court, and with which we agree, appear as follows:
October 22, 1976, the defendant was arrested on a charge of aggravated burglary, a first degree felony (R.C. 2911.11).
October 28, 1976, a preliminary hearing was held in the Akron Municipal Court. Probable cause was found and the defendant was bound over to the grand jury of Summit County.
November 21, 1976, defendant was released on bail.
November 24, 1976, the grand jury returned an indictment for criminal trespass, a fourth degree misdemeanor (R.C. 2911.21).
November 24, 1976, the Court of Common Pleas remanded the case back to the Akron Municipal Court and a summons was issued on the new charge.
November 30, 1976, service of summons was had upon the accused for criminal trespass.
December 15, 1976, defendant appeared in the Akron Municipal Court and moved for a dismissal of the charge against him pursuant to R.C. 2945.73(B).
We first direct attention to pertinent parts of R.C. 2945.71, entitled: "Time within which hearing or trial must be held."
As we view this appeal, the defendant's felony charge in the Akron Municipal Court was dismissed by the grand jury and a new charge followed. This new charge brought into action the statutory time limitations relating to misdemeanors. The time limitations of the statute relating to felonies was no longer applicable. We are impressed with and approve the finding of the Akron Municipal Court as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Brecksville v. Eric Cook
... ... conviction ... II ... Motion 47852 ... In ... State v. Wilson (1975), 41 Ohio St.2d 236, syllabus, ... the Supreme Court stated: ... Where a defendant, convicted of a criminal offense, has ... 2945.71(A) ... mandates that time is to be calculated from the date of the ... accused's arrest, see, also, State v. Sauers ... (1977), 52 Ohio App.2d 113, 115, and since R.C. 2945.72(F) ... authorizes tolling only during the "period of delay ... ...
-
State v. Jesse Branham
... ... which was subsequently dismissed and replaced with a ... misdemeanor charge based on the same conduct, the speedy ... trial provisions of R.C. 2945.71 begin to run anew on the ... date the summons was served for the lesser offense. See State ... v. Sauers (1977), 52 Ohio App. 2d 113; ... State v. Phillips (1984), 19 Ohio App. 3d ... 85; and State v. Cattee (1983), 14 Ohio ... App. 3d 239 ... All of ... these courts reject, as we do, the notion that the time ... accrued while the charge was a ... ...
-
State v. Phillips, 83AP-1061
...begins to run upon service of the summons, without regard to the previously dismissed felony charge. It cites State v. Sauers (1977), 52 Ohio App.2d 113, 368 N.E.2d 334 , from the Court of Appeals for Summit County, in support. There the defendant was bound over on a felony charge, but the ......
-
State v. Michael D. Ulmer, 81-LW-0675
...the charge was reduced from a previous felony indictment, runs from the date the summons is served for the lesser misdemeanor offense. Id. at 115. constitutional limits on delay should apply during intervals when the defendant is not held in jail or on bail, the considerably more restrictiv......