The court of common pleas shall set all criminal cases for trial for a day not later than thirty days after the date of entry of the plea of the defendant. No continuance of the trial shall be granted except upon affirmative proof in open court, upon reasonable notice, that the ends of justice require a continuance.
No continuance shall be granted for any other time than it is affirmatively proved the ends of justice require.
Whenever any continuance is granted, the court shall enter on the journal the reason for the same.
Criminal cases shall be given precedence over civil matters and proceedings. The failure of the court to set such criminal cases for trial, as required by this section, does not operate as an acquittal, but upon notice of such failure or upon motion of the prosecuting attorney or a defendant, such case shall forthwith be set for trial within a reasonable time, not exceeding thirty days thereafter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25
cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1964–2026 · leading case: State v. Jackson, 2022 Ohio 1522 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
State v. Jackson, 2022 Ohio 1522 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 4ד” The statute also provides that: “The failure of the court to set such criminal cases for trial, as required by this section, does not operate as an acquittal[.”
State v. Gray, 203 N.E.2d 319 (Ohio 1964). · cites it 4דSection 2945.02 of the Revised Code, in part, provides: “The Court of Common Pleas shall set all criminal cases for trial for a day not later than 30 days after the date of entry of the plea of the defendant.”
State v. McCall, 787 N.E.2d 1241 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2ד03, R.C. 2945.02, and Sup.R. 41(B)(1), because criminal cases must take priority over civil cases.”
State v. Spirko, 570 N.E.2d 229 (Ohio 1991). “2d 1078 , and R.C. 2945.02. Defendant, however, mistakenly relies on Johnson, supra, as authority for his position.”
State v. Benson, 505 N.E.2d 987 (Ohio Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2דFurther, R.C. 2945.02 clearly provides: “No continuance of the trial shall be granted except upon affirmative proof in open court, upon reasonable notice, that the ends of justice require a continuance.”
State v. Johnson, 494 N.E.2d 1061 (Ohio 1986). “See R.C. 2945.02. We therefore conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to grant the requested continuance.”
State v. Sumlin, 2025 Ohio 550 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2ד22, when a grand jury returns an indictment, “[t]he court shall assign such indictments for trial under section 2945.02 of the Revised Code, and recognizances of defendants and witnesses shall be taken for their appearance in court.”
State v. Baugh, 2018 Ohio 857 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). “The trial court noted in the October 26 entry, which continued the trial upon appellant’s October 25 motion, that it “constitute[d] an enlargement of time for trial pursuant to R.”
State v. Sherrer, 2016 Ohio 3198 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “of the Ohio Revised Code and the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Ohio Rules of Superintendence as to the time for trial in the above- captioned matter. Defendant and her counsel acknowledge and consent to the time waiver by their signature below.”
State v. Smith, 2018 Ohio 3175 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). “R.C. 2945.02 permits the trial court to extend speedy trial time as long as the length of time is reasonable and the reason for the continuance is indicated in the judgment entry.”
State v. Nelson, 2025 Ohio 2025 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025). “{¶ 35} We summarily reject Nelson’s arguments that the continuance should not be charged to him due to the lack of a written motion in the record and that the entry did not comply with R.C. 2945.02. Significantly, on June 24, 2024, the then-scheduled trial date, defense counsel…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.