The Akron Legal News

Login | March 29, 2024

Woman's speedy-trial challenge overturned; convictions reinstated

KEITH ARNOLD
Special to the Legal News

Published: June 10, 2019

The Ohio Supreme Court reasoned that speedy-trial time is tolled when a defendant requests a continuance or the record reflects the reason for such a request.

In the circumstance of defendant Danielle Martin, the court majority expanded the rule to include instances in which a trial court fails to journalize such a request.

Martin's convictions on first-degree misdemeanor charges of driving under the influence and failure to comply with a police officer's order were resultantly reinstated and the Eleventh District Court of Appeals decision overturned.

The court of appeals determined that the period of delay from Dec. 14, 2015, to March 14, 2016, counted against the state because the court did not note in its journal entries that Martin had requested the continuances during that period, Justice Melody Stewart noted in the decision.

"This determination was incorrect," Stewart wrote. "In State v. Myers, 97 Ohio St.3d 335, 2002-Ohio-6658, 780 N.E.2d 186, this court explained that a court's journal entry need not identify the defendant as the requesting party in order for the speedy-trial time to toll, so long as the record affirmatively demonstrates that the defendant requested the continuance.

"The pretrial-hearing transcripts affirmatively show that Martin's counsel requested all the continuances between Dec. 14, 2015, and March 14, 2016. Accordingly, the speedy-trial time was tolled during that time. After removing that period of delay from the speedy-trial calculation, 36 days of Martin's speedy-trial time had run as of March 28, 2016."

Martin was arrested on Nov. 21, 2015, and appeared before the trial court on Nov. 23 and was released from jail the same day, case summary detailed. The woman did not waive her speedy-trial rights.

Martin's defense attorney requested continuances for case preparation and plea deal discussions at each of the three pretrial hearings. At the next hearing, defense counsel notified the court that a satisfactory deal had not been reached and the court set the case for trial on March 28.

The court's transcript and journal entries showed that the trial was rescheduled for May 2, for good cause, summary continued. Another rescheduling resulted from "conflicting notices" having been sent.

Subsequently, Martin's new counsel sought a rescheduling of a pretrial hearing set for June 20.

Martin filed a motion to dismiss the charges, alleging that her speedy-trial rights had been violated, June 29.

The court denied the motion Aug. 18 on the basis that only 36 days of Martin's speedy-trial time had elapsed when all the tolling events were considered.

Martin filed a motion for reconsideration Sept. 7 and the court denied it. The woman subsequently pleaded no contest to a number of the charges on Oct. 3 and was sentenced accordingly.

Martin argued on appeal that the trial court should have found that the period of delay from December 14, 2015, to March 14, 2016, was attributable to the state.

An Eleventh District panel overturned the trial court decision and vacated the woman's convictions on the basis that the entire 112-day delay was chargeable to the state because the court had failed to record in its journal entries.

Stewart determined the appellate holding misplaced.

"In reaching this conclusion, we realize that the specific facts surrounding the March-28-to-May-2 continuance are such that the case cannot neatly be resolved ...; the record does not affirmatively show that Martin's counsel requested the continuance ..., but it strongly indicates that the order was not entered sua sponte," the majority opinion continued. "In cases such as these, hard-line rules ... serve only as guideposts for a court's analysis.

"Reviewing courts must focus on the underlying source of the delay. When the facts and circumstances of the case show that the underlying source of the delay was attributable to the defendant, it would make a mockery of justice to attribute the delay to the state."

Justices Sharon Kennedy, Judith French, Patrick DeWine and Michael Donnelly joined Stewart to form the majority, while Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor and Justice Patrick Fischer would have dismissed the appeal as having been improvidently accepted.

The case is cited as State v. Martin, Slip Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-2010.

Copyright © 2019 The Daily Reporter - All Rights Reserved


[Back]