State v. Siler
| Decision Date | 24 January 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-443,78-443 |
| Citation | 384 N.E.2d 710,11 O.O.3d 1,57 Ohio St.2d 1 |
| Parties | , 11 O.O.3d 1 The STATE of Ohio, Appellant, v. SILER, Appellee. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Defendant was arrested on August 23, 1976, and charged with aggravated robbery, a violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(1). A preliminary hearing was held in Municipal Court on September 3, and defendant was bound over to the grand jury which indicted him on September 29 for aggravated robbery.
At his arraignment before the Court of Common Pleas of Mahoning County on October 8, 1976, and while represented by counsel, defendant pleaded not guilty. On October 22, defendant filed a motion to suppress and, after a hearing on December 28, at which he was represented by counsel, his motion to suppress was overruled.
On April 15, 1977, after he had received notice of the setting of a trial date, defendant filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that he had been denied a speedy trial. Three days later that motion was overruled, and, following a jury trial, defendant was found guilty as charged.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas on the ground that defendant had been denied a speedy trial. A majority of the Court of Appeals held that R.C. 2945.72(H) cannot "extend the 90 day limit provided by R.C. 2945.71(C)(2) and (D) unless the trial court grants a continuance by entry prior to the expiration of time limit provided by R.C. 2945.71." 1
The allowance of the state's motion for leave to appeal brings the cause to this court for review.
Vincent E. Gilmartin, Pros. Atty., and John A. Kicz, Youngstown, for appellant.
Breckenridge & Haynes and E. Winther McCroom, Youngstown, for appellee.
The state argues, in effect, that representations made to the trial court by defense counsel that he was unable to proceed with the case until a later time "serve(d) to extend the time for trial pursuant to * * * Section 2945.72" where the trial was, in fact, scheduled for a later date. 2
Between December 28, 1976, when the trial court overruled defendant's motion to suppress, and April 15, 1977, the date defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of speedy trial was filed, the trial court made No order or entry either setting defendant's trial within the time limitations of R.C. 2945.71 or granting a continuance (with facts demonstrating the necessity and reasonableness of such continuance).
In the recent case of Elmwood Place v. Denike (1978), 56 Ohio St.2d 427, 384 N.E.2d 707, this court held that * * * " (Emphasis added.) The court concluded that "because the Sua sponte continuance order of the trial court * * * was not supported by Sufficient detail contained in the record, the judgment" must be reversed. (Emphasis added.)
In State v. Wentworth (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 171, 375 N.E.2d 424, this court held that the Order of a trial court continuing defendant's case for trial beyond the statutory time limitations for reason of a crowded docket "without further explication of such reason appearing in the record" is insufficient to extend the time limitations of R.C. 2945.71(B)(2).
In Elmwood Place and in Wentworth entries appear in the records giving reasons for the continuance of trial dates. In the present cause, however, there is No entry in the record ever setting a trial date within the time limits provided in R.C. 2945.71 or giving any reason for the date of defendant's trial being substantially beyond such time limitations.
This court has "imposed upon the prosecution and the trial courts the mandatory duty of complying with R.C. 2945.71 [384 N.E.2d 712] through 2945.73" and held that "the burden is * * * on the state to bring an accused to trial within the statutory period." State v. Singer (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 103, 105, 106, 362 N.E.2d 1216, 1219.
Therefore, in accordance with this court's holdings in Elmwood Place and Wentworth, supra,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Pachay
...v. Denike (1978), 56 Ohio St.2d 427, 384 N.E.2d 707; State v. Cutcher (1978), 56 Ohio St.2d 383, 384 N.E.2d 275; State v. Siler (1979), 57 Ohio St.2d 1, 384 N.E.2d 710; State v. Montgomery (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 78, 399 N.E.2d 552; State v. Bauer (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 83, 399 N.E.2d 555; Aur......
-
State v. Pierson
...the reasons justifying the continuance. See, e.g., State v. Mincy (198[2]), 2 Ohio St.3d 6, 8 , 441 N.E.2d 571; State v. Siler (1979), 57 Ohio St.2d 1, 3 , 384 N.E.2d 710; State v. Lee (1976), 48 Ohio St.2d 208, 209 , 357 N.E.2d 1095; State v. Broerman (Feb. 18, 1983), Lucas App. No. L-82-2......
-
State v. Michael Spencer, 98-LW-4157
... ... 2945.72(G). State v. Mays ... (1996), 108 Ohio App.3d 598, 612-613 ... Generally, a trial court must include the reason for granting ... a continuance in its journal entries. See State v ... Mincy (1982), 2 Ohio St.3d 6; State v. Siler ... (1979), 57 Ohio St.2d 1; State v. Lee (1976), 48 ... Ohio St.2d 208; Geraldo , 13 Ohio App.3d 27. When the ... record indicates that the trial court continued a trial date ... because of a motion on the part of the defendant, then the ... delay will be assessed ... ...
-
State v. Geraldo
...forth the reasons justifying the continuance. See, e.g., State v. Mincy (1983), 2 Ohio St.3d 6, 8, 441 N.E.2d 571; State v. Siler (1979), 57 Ohio St.2d 1, 3, 384 N.E.2d 710 ; State v. Lee (1976), 48 Ohio St.2d 208, 209, 357 N.E.2d 1095 ; State v. Broerman (Feb. 18, 1983), Lucas App. No. L-8......