accused is unavailable hearing in Ohio

2022Id. {¶66} “When reviewing a speedy-trial issue, an appellate court must calculate the number of days chargeable to either party and determine whether the appellant was properly brought to trial within the time limits set forth in R.C. 2945.71.” State v. Riley, 162 Ohio App.3d 730 , 2005-Ohio-4337 , 834 N.E.2d 887, ¶ 19 . {¶67} R.C. 2945.72, which sets forth the provisions tolling the speedy trial parameters, provides, in pertinent part: The time within which an accused must be brought to trial, or, in the case of felony, to preliminary hearing and trial, may be extended only by the following:

2022Id. {¶66} “When reviewing a speedy-trial issue, an appellate court must calculate the number of days chargeable to either party and determine whether the appellant was properly brought to trial within the time limits set forth in R.C. 2945.71.” State v. Riley, 162 Ohio App.3d 730 , 2005-Ohio-4337 , 834 N.E.2d 887, ¶ 19 . {¶67} R.C. 2945.72, which sets forth the provisions tolling the speedy trial parameters, provides, in pertinent part: The time within which an accused must be brought to trial, or, in the case of felony, to preliminary hearing and trial, may be extended only by the following:

2008In Brecksville v. Cook (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 53 , 57 , 661 N.E.2d 706 , 709 , the court reiterated its prior admonition "to strictly construe the speedy trial statutes against the state." {¶ 38} The time to bring a defendant to trial can be extended for any of the reasons enumerated in R.C. 2945.72 , which provides: {¶ 39} "The time within which an accused must be brought to trial, or, in the case of felony, to preliminary hearing and trial, may be extended only by the following: *Page 12 {¶ 40} "(A) Any period during which the accused is unavailable for hearing or trial, by reason of other cr

2008In Brecksville v. Cook (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 53 , 57 , 661 N.E.2d 706 , 709 , the court reiterated its prior admonition "to strictly construe the speedy trial statutes against the state." {¶ 38} The time to bring a defendant to trial can be extended for any of the reasons enumerated in R.C. 2945.72 , which provides: {¶ 39} "The time within which an accused must be brought to trial, or, in the case of felony, to preliminary hearing and trial, may be extended only by the following: *Page 12 {¶ 40} "(A) Any period during which the accused is unavailable for hearing or trial, by reason of other cr

2008In Brecksville v. Cook (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 53 , 57 , 661 N.E.2d 706 , 709 , the court reiterated its prior admonition "to strictly construe the speedy trial statutes against the state." {¶ 38} The time to bring a defendant to trial can be extended for any of the reasons enumerated in R.C. 2945.72 , which provides: {¶ 39} "The time within which an accused must be brought to trial, or, in the case of felony, to preliminary hearing and trial, may be extended only by the following: *Page 12 {¶ 40} "(A) Any period during which the accused is unavailable for hearing or trial, by reason of other cr

2008In Brecksville v. Cook (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 53 , 57 , 661 N.E.2d 706 , 709 , the court reiterated its prior admonition "to strictly construe the speedy trial statutes against the state." {¶ 38} The time to bring a defendant to trial can be extended for any of the reasons enumerated in R.C. 2945.72 , which provides: {¶ 39} "The time within which an accused must be brought to trial, or, in the case of felony, to preliminary hearing and trial, may be extended only by the following: *Page 12 {¶ 40} "(A) Any period during which the accused is unavailable for hearing or trial, by reason of other cr

2014This tolled the time period, R.C. 2945.72(E), State v. Brown, 98 Ohio St.3d 121 , 2002-Ohio-7040 , 781 N.E.2d 159 , at the syllabus and ¶¶22-23.

2014This tolled the time period, R.C. 2945.72(E), State v. Brown, 98 Ohio St.3d 121 , 2002-Ohio-7040 , 781 N.E.2d 159 , at the syllabus and ¶¶22-23.

2014This tolled the time period, R.C. 2945.72(E), State v. Brown, 98 Ohio St.3d 121 , 2002-Ohio-7040 , 781 N.E.2d 159 , at the syllabus and ¶¶22-23.

2012See R.C. 2945.72(E); State v. Brown, 98 Ohio St.3d 121 , 2002-Ohio-7040 , 781 N.E.2d 159 .

2012State v. Butcher, 27 Ohio St.2d 28 , 31, 500 N.E.2d 1368 (1986). “[W]hen a criminal defendant shows that he had not been brought to trial within the proper time period, the burden shifts to the state to demonstrate that sufficient time was tolled or extended under the statute.” State v. Maisch, 173 Ohio App.3d 724 , 2007-Ohio-6230 , 880 N.E.2d 153, ¶ 24 (3d Dist.). {¶ 18} The State argues that Defendant’s speedy trial time was tolled pursuant to R.C. 2945.72(A), which provides that the time within an accused must be brought to trial may be extended by: [a]ny period during which the accused is

2009State v. Butcher (1986), 27 Ohio St.3d 28 , 30-31 , 500 N.E.2d 1368 .

2008The request of the prisoner shall be accompanied by a certificate of the warden or superintendent having custody of the prisoner, stating the term of commitment under which the prisoner is being held, the time served and remaining to be served on the sentence, the amount of good time earned, the time of parole eligibility of the prisoner, and any decisions of the adult parole authority relating to the prisoner." (Emphasis added.) {¶ 22} Further, R.C. 2945.72 , provides in pertinent part: {¶ 23} "The time within which an accused must be brought to trial, or, in the case of felony, to preliminar

2005R.C. 2945.72(A) extends that time when “the accused is unavailable for hearing or trial, by reason of other criminal proceedings against him, within or outside the state, by reason of his confinement in another state, or by reason of the pendency of extradition proceedings, provided that the prosecution exercises reasonable diligence to secure his availability.” {¶ 12} R.C. 2941.401 provides, “When a person has entered upon a term of imprisonment in a correctional institution of this state, and when during the continuance of the term of imprisonment there is pending in this state any untried i

2006In Brecksville v. Cook (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 53 , 57 , 661 N.E.2d 706 , 709 , the Court reiterated its prior admonition "to strictly construe speedy trial statutes against the state." {¶ 21} The time to bring a defendant to trial can be extended for any of the reasons enumerated in R.C. § 2945.72 , which provides, in pertinent part: {¶ 22} "The time within which an accused must be brought to trial, or, in the case of felony, to preliminary hearing and trial, may be extended only by the following: {¶ 23} "(A) Any period during which the accused is unavailable for hearing or trial, by reason of

2006In Brecksville v. Cook (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 53 , 57 , 661 N.E.2d 706 , 709 , the Court reiterated its prior admonition "to strictly construe speedy trial statutes against the state." {¶ 21} The time to bring a defendant to trial can be extended for any of the reasons enumerated in R.C. § 2945.72 , which provides, in pertinent part: {¶ 22} "The time within which an accused must be brought to trial, or, in the case of felony, to preliminary hearing and trial, may be extended only by the following: {¶ 23} "(A) Any period during which the accused is unavailable for hearing or trial, by reason of

2022Summit No. 27661, 2016-Ohio-4687, ¶ 6 . {¶13} Pursuant to R.C. 2945.72: The time within which an accused must be brought to trial, or, in the case of felony, to preliminary hearing and trial, may be extended only by the following: (A) Any period during which the accused is unavailable for hearing or trial, by reason of other criminal proceedings against him, within or outside the state, by reason of his confinement in another state, or by reason of the pendency of extradition proceedings, provided that the prosecution exercises reasonable diligence to secure his availability; (B) Any period du

2022The first day of arrest is not included in the speedy trial calculation State v. Adams, 144 Ohio St.3d 429 , 45 N.E.3d 127 , 2015–Ohio–3954.

2022The first day of arrest is not included in the speedy trial calculation State v. Adams, 144 Ohio St.3d 429 , 45 N.E.3d 127 , 2015–Ohio–3954.

2020In other words, "[t]he prosecution and the trial courts have a mandatory duty to try an accused within the time frame provided by the statute * * * [and] [s]trict compliance with the statute is required." State v. Ramey, 132 Ohio St.3d 309 , 2012-Ohio-2904, ¶ 14 , citing State v. Cutcher, 56 Ohio St.2d 383, 384 (1978); State v. Singer, 50 Ohio St.2d 103, 105 (1977); State v. Davis, 46 Ohio St.2d 444, 448 (1976). {¶ 31} R.C. 2945.72 provides that a number of events extend (or toll) the time within which an accused must be brought to trial: (A) Any period during which the accused is unavailable

2020In other words, "[t]he prosecution and the trial courts have a mandatory duty to try an accused within the time frame provided by the statute * * * [and] [s]trict compliance with the statute is required." State v. Ramey, 132 Ohio St.3d 309 , 2012-Ohio-2904, ¶ 14 , citing State v. Cutcher, 56 Ohio St.2d 383, 384 (1978); State v. Singer, 50 Ohio St.2d 103, 105 (1977); State v. Davis, 46 Ohio St.2d 444, 448 (1976). {¶ 31} R.C. 2945.72 provides that a number of events extend (or toll) the time within which an accused must be brought to trial: (A) Any period during which the accused is unavailable

2019R.C. 2945.72 provides for a tolling of the time limitations under certain circumstances, The time within which an accused must be brought to trial, or, in the case of felony, to preliminary hearing and trial, may be extended only by the following: (A) Any period during which the accused is unavailable for hearing or trial, by reason of other criminal proceedings against him, within or outside the state, by reason of his confinement in another state, or by reason of the pendency of extradition proceedings, provided that the prosecution exercises reasonable diligence to secure his availability;

2019R.C. 2945.72 provides for a tolling of the time limitations under certain circumstances, The time within which an accused must be brought to trial, or, in the case of felony, to preliminary hearing and trial, may be extended only by the following: (A) Any period during which the accused is unavailable for hearing or trial, by reason of other criminal proceedings against him, within or outside the state, by reason of his confinement in another state, or by reason of the pendency of extradition proceedings, provided that the prosecution exercises reasonable diligence to secure his availability;

2016Under R.C. 2945.72, the time to No. 15AP-920 4 bring the defendant to trial may be extended for various reasons with counting against the speedy trial limit: (A) Any period during which the accused is unavailable for hearing or trial, by reason of other criminal proceedings against him, within or outside the state, by reason of his confinement in another state, or by reason of the pendency of extradition proceedings, provided that the prosecution exercises reasonable diligence to secure his availability; (B) Any period during which the accused is mentally incompetent to stand trial or during w

2013In addition to motions by the accused and motions by the state for continuance, a trial court’s sua sponte continuance will toll the speedy trial clock, but any “sua sponte continuance must be reasonable, and must be accompanied by a journal entry which is made prior to the expiration of the statutory time limit and explains the reasons for the continuance.” State v. King, 70 Ohio St.3d 158, 160 , 637 N.E.2d 903 (1994) (reaffirming State v. Mincy, 2 Ohio St.3d 6 , 441 N.E.2d 571 (1982).

2013In addition to motions by the accused and motions by the state for continuance, a trial court’s sua sponte continuance will toll the speedy trial clock, but any “sua sponte continuance must be reasonable, and must be accompanied by a journal entry which is made prior to the expiration of the statutory time limit and explains the reasons for the continuance.” State v. King, 70 Ohio St.3d 158, 160 , 637 N.E.2d 903 (1994) (reaffirming State v. Mincy, 2 Ohio St.3d 6 , 441 N.E.2d 571 (1982).

2013In addition to motions by the accused and motions by the state for continuance, a trial court’s sua sponte continuance will toll the speedy trial clock, but any “sua sponte continuance must be reasonable, and must be accompanied by a journal entry which is made prior to the expiration of the statutory time limit and explains the reasons for the continuance.” State v. King, 70 Ohio St.3d 158, 160 , 637 N.E.2d 903 (1994) (reaffirming State v. Mincy, 2 Ohio St.3d 6 , 441 N.E.2d 571 (1982).

2013In addition to motions by the accused and motions by the state for continuance, a trial court’s sua sponte continuance will toll the speedy trial clock, but any “sua sponte continuance must be reasonable, and must be accompanied by a journal entry which is made prior to the expiration of the statutory time limit and explains the reasons for the continuance.” State v. King, 70 Ohio St.3d 158, 160 , 637 N.E.2d 903 (1994) (reaffirming State v. Mincy, 2 Ohio St.3d 6 , 441 N.E.2d 571 (1982).

2009R.C. 2945.72(A) extends that time when “the accused is unavailable for hearing or trial, by reason of other criminal proceedings against him, within or outside the state, by reason of his confinement in another state, or by reason of the pendency of extradition proceedings, provided that the prosecution exercises reasonable diligence to secure his availability.” {¶ 13} The United States Supreme Court enunciated the test for a violation of a defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial in Barker v. Wingo (1972), 407 U.S. 514 , 92 S.Ct. 2182 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 .

2009R.C. 2945.72(A) extends that time when “the accused is unavailable for hearing or trial, by reason of other criminal proceedings against him, within or outside the state, by reason of his confinement in another state, or by reason of the pendency of extradition proceedings, provided that the prosecution exercises reasonable diligence to secure his availability.” {¶ 13} The United States Supreme Court enunciated the test for a violation of a defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial in Barker v. Wingo (1972), 407 U.S. 514 , 92 S.Ct. 2182 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 .

2007State v. Broughton (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 253 , 260 , 581 N.E.2d 541 .

2007State v. Broughton (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 253 , 260 , 581 N.E.2d 541 .

2007The time may be extended when: "(A) Any period during which the accused is unavailable for hearing or trial, by reason of other criminal proceedings against him, within or outside the state, by reason of his confinement in another state, or by reason of the pendency of extradition proceedings, provided that the prosecution exercises reasonable diligence to secure his availability; (B) Any period during which the accused is mentally incompetent to stand trial or during which his mental competence to stand trial is being determined, or any period during which the accused is physically incapable

2007State v. *Page 5 Miller 1996), 113 Ohio App.3d 606 , 681 N.E.2d 970 .

2007State v. *Page 5 Miller 1996), 113 Ohio App.3d 606 , 681 N.E.2d 970 .

2006State v. Steiner (1991), 71 Ohio App.3d 249 , 250 , 593 N.E.2d 368 , citing R.C. 1.14 and Crim.R. 45(A). {¶ 25} The time to bring a defendant to trial can be extended for any of the reasons enumerated in R.C. § 2945.72 , which provides, in pertinent part: {¶ 26} "The time within which an accused must be brought to trial, or, in the case of felony, to preliminary hearing and trial, may be extended only by the following: {¶ 27} "(A) Any period during which the accused is unavailable for hearing or trial, by reason of other criminal proceedings against him, within or outside the state, by reason

2006State v. Steiner (1991), 71 Ohio App.3d 249 , 250 , 593 N.E.2d 368 , citing R.C. 1.14 and Crim.R. 45(A). {¶ 25} The time to bring a defendant to trial can be extended for any of the reasons enumerated in R.C. § 2945.72 , which provides, in pertinent part: {¶ 26} "The time within which an accused must be brought to trial, or, in the case of felony, to preliminary hearing and trial, may be extended only by the following: {¶ 27} "(A) Any period during which the accused is unavailable for hearing or trial, by reason of other criminal proceedings against him, within or outside the state, by reason

2001State v. Reitz (1984), 26 Ohio App.3d 1 , 498 N.E.2d 163 .

2001State v. Reitz (1984), 26 Ohio App.3d 1 , 498 N.E.2d 163 .

1997State v. Geraldo (1983), 13 Ohio App.3d 27 , 13 OBR 29, 468 N.E.2d 328 ; State v. Fetzer (July 20, 1990), Portage App. No. 89-P-2085, unreported, 1990 WL 103954 .

1997State v. Geraldo (1983), 13 Ohio App.3d 27 , 13 OBR 29, 468 N.E.2d 328 ; State v. Fetzer (July 20, 1990), Portage App. No. 89-P-2085, unreported, 1990 WL 103954 .