[Cite as State v. Pollock, 2012-Ohio-2819.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
ROSS COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
:
Plaintiff-Appellee, : Case No. 11CA3267
:
vs. : Released: June 13, 2012
:
RANDY POLLOCK, : DECISION AND JUDGMENT
: ENTRY
Defendant-Appellant. :
_____________________________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
Stephen K. Sesser, Chillicothe, Ohio, for Appellant.
Matthew S. Schmidt, Ross County Prosecuting Attorney, and Richard W.
Clagg, Ross County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Chillicothe, Ohio, for
Appellee.
_____________________________________________________________
McFarland, J.:
{¶1} Appellant, Randy Pollock, appeals the judgment of the Ross
County Court of Common Pleas finding him guilty after he pled no contest
to aggravated robbery, a first degree felony in violation of R.C. 2911.01,
with a firearm specification. On appeal, Appellant contends that the trial
court erred in overruling his motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds. In
light of our conclusion that the State failed to bring Appellant to trial within
the speedy trial limit, we sustain Appellant’s sole assignment of error.
Ross App. No. 11CA3267 2
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the case is
remanded for discharge pursuant to R.C. 2945.73.
FACTS
{¶2}Appellant was arrested on August 13, 2010, during the course of
an investigation related to the aggravated robbery of a Circle K store in
Chillicothe, Ohio, that occurred on August 12, 2010. Appellant was taken to
jail and was held on the aggravated robbery charge, as well as four other
unrelated misdemeanor charges, until August 23, 2010, at which time a
preliminary hearing was held and Appellant was bound over to the Common
Pleas Court. Appellant remained incarcerated solely on the pending felony
aggravated robbery charge from August 23, 2010, until he pled no contest to
the charge on June 15, 2011.1
{¶3}There were several defense motions filed between August 23,
2010, and June 15, 2011. On September 29, 2010, Appellant filed a demand
for discovery, which the State provided the same day.2 On October 27,
2010, Appellant filed a motion for a competency evaluation, which resulted
1
Although the parties on appeal both argue that Appellant was held solely on the pending aggravated
robbery charge beginning August, 30, 2010, the transcript from the hearing on the motion to dismiss
indicates that both parties and the court all agreed that Appellant was held solely on the aggravated robbery
charge beginning on August 23, 2010. Because the record before us contains nothing regarding the
dismissal of Appellant’s unrelated misdemeanor charges, we will rely on the date referred to in the
transcript.
2
We could not locate anything in the record to confirm that the State responded to Appellant’s discovery
demand the same day it was filed, with the exception of the mentioning of this fact in the transcript from
the hearing on the motion to dismiss.
Ross App. No. 11CA3267 3
in a hearing being held and a decision being announced on December 7,
2010.3 Then, on December 14, 2010, one week prior to the scheduled
December 21, 2010, trial, Appellant’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw.
The trial court granted the motion to withdraw by order dated December 22,
2010, and by the same order the trial court appointed new counsel. By a
separate entry filed on December 22, 2010, the trial court reassigned the trial
date to February 23, 2011. On February 18, 2011, Appellant filed a pro se
request for a bill of particulars, followed by a motion to dismiss based upon
speedy trial grounds, by counsel, on February 19, 2011.
{¶4}Many additional motions and continuances were filed and
granted from February 19, 2011, until Appellant pled no contest on June 15,
2011. After pleading no contest, Appellant was sentenced, by sentencing
entry dated July 29, 2011, to a four year prison term for aggravated robbery,
as well as three additional years on the firearm specification, for a total of
seven years. It is from this entry that Appellant now brings his timely
appeal, assigning a single assignment of error for our review.
3
Again, the record does not contain an entry or decision finding Appellant competent to stand trial on
December 7, 2010. However, the trial court stated on the record during the hearing on the motion to
dismiss that a decision was announced finding Appellant competent to stand trial on December 7, 2010,
and that the speedy trial clock began to run again on December 8, 2010. In the absence of any argument to
the contrary, we will rely on this date.
Ross App. No. 11CA3267 4
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
“I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN OVERRULING POLLOCK’S
MOTION TO DISMISS ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS.”
LEGAL ANALYSIS
{¶5}In his sole assignment of error, Appellant contends that the trial
court erred in overruling his motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds.
Appellant argues that the specific question presented in this case is
“[w]hether or not speedy trial time should be tolled when a trial court sua
sponte issues a continuance that does not identify the party to whom it is
chargeable or the reasons justifying the continuance.” The particular
continuance at issue herein was ordered as a result of the trial court’s
December 22, 2010, entry which rescheduled the trial from December 21,
2010, to February 23, 2011. The State agrees that the issue in this case is
narrow, but argues that speedy trial time was tolled as a result of the
December 22, 2010, entry, in part due to Appellant’s counsel’s withdrawal
from representation one week prior to the scheduled December 21, 2010,
trial.
{¶6}Our review of a trial court's decision regarding a motion to
dismiss for an alleged speedy trial violation involves mixed questions of law
and fact. See, e.g., State v. Alexander, 4th Dist. No. 08CA3221, 2009-Ohio-
1401, at ¶ 15. We accord due deference to the trial court's findings of fact if
Ross App. No. 11CA3267 5
they are supported by competent, credible evidence. Id. However, we
independently determine whether the trial court properly applied the law to
the facts of the case. Id.
{¶7} “The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and
Section 10, Article I of the Ohio Constitution guarantee a criminal defendant
the right to a speedy trial. R.C. 2945.71 implements this guarantee with
specific time limits within which a person must be brought to trial.” State v.
Blackburn, 118 Ohio St.3d 163, 2008-Ohio-1823, 887 N.E.2d 319, ¶ 10. If
the State fails to bring a defendant to trial within the time required by R.C.
2945.71 and 2945.72, the trial court must discharge the defendant upon
motion made at or prior to the start of trial. R.C. 2945.73(B). The Ohio
Supreme Court has “imposed upon the prosecution and the trial courts the
mandatory duty of complying” with the speedy trial statutes. State v. Singer,
50 Ohio St.2d 103, 105, 362 N.E.2d 1216 (1977); see, also, State v. Parker
113 Ohio St.3d 207, 2007-Ohio-1534, 863 N.E.2d 1032, ¶ 14-15. We must
strictly construe the speedy trial statutes against the state. See Brecksville v.
Cook, 75 Ohio St.3d 53, 57, 661 N.E.2d 706 (1996).
{¶8}R.C. 2945.71 requires the State to try a person accused of a
felony “within two hundred seventy days after the person's arrest.” R.C.
2945.71(C)(2). Under R.C. 2945.71(E), each day that a defendant is
Ross App. No. 11CA3267 6
incarcerated in lieu of bond on the pending charge counts as three days. An
accused presents a prima facie case for discharge by demonstrating that his
case was pending for a time exceeding the statutory limits provided in R.C.
2945.71. See, e.g., State v. Butcher, 27 Ohio St.3d 28, 30-31, 500 N.E.2d
1368 (1986). The burden then shifts to the state to show that the time limit
was extended under R.C. 2945.72. Id. at 31.
{¶9}R.C. 2945.72 sets forth the circumstances under which the two
hundred seventy day period may be extended. R.C. 2945 .72 provides:
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 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
Ross App. No. 11CA3267 7
during which the accused is physically incapable of standing
trial;
(C) Any period of delay necessitated by the accused's
lack of counsel, provided that such delay is not occasioned by
any lack of diligence in providing counsel to an indigent
accused upon his request as required by law;
(D) Any period of delay occasioned by the neglect or
improper act of the accused;
(E) Any period of delay necessitated by reason of a plea
in bar or abatement, motion, proceeding, or action made or
instituted by the accused;
(F) Any period of delay necessitated by a removal or
change of venue pursuant to law;
(G) Any period during which trial is stayed pursuant to
an express statutory requirement, or pursuant to an order of
another court competent to issue such order;
(H) The period of any continuance granted on the
accused's own motion and the period of any reasonable
continuance granted other than upon the accused's own motion;
Ross App. No. 11CA3267 8
(I) Any period during which an appeal filed pursuant to
section 2945.67 of the Revised Code is pending.
{¶10}As set forth above, Appellant was arrested and subsequently
indicted for felony aggravated robbery. The State had to try Appellant
within 270 days from the date of his arrest August 13, 2010. At the time
Appellant filed his motion to dismiss based upon speedy trial grounds on
February 19, 2011, 552 days had elapsed for purposes of speedy trial time,
taking into consideration the fact that Appellant was incarcerated the whole
time, and applying the triple count provision pursuant to R.C. 2945.71(E).
Thus, Appellant has presented a prima facie case for discharge by
demonstrating that his case was pending for a time exceeding the statutory
limits provided in R.C. 2945.71. See, State v. Butcher, supra, at 30-31. As
such, the burden shifts to the state to show that the time limit was extended
under R.C. 2945.72. Id. at 31. The State argues that the time limit was
extended by application of R.C. 2945.72(C) and (E), which toll time during
periods when the accused lacks counsel, and also for motions filed by the
accused. However, after reviewing the record, and based upon the following
analysis, we conclude that the State did, in fact, fail to bring Appellant to
trial within the statutory speedy trial limitations.
Ross App. No. 11CA3267 9
{¶11}When Appellant filed his motion to dismiss based upon speedy
trial limitations on February 19, 2011, 191 calendar days elapsed. We arrive
at that number starting from August 14, 2010, the day after Appellant’s
arrest.4 Further, we note that Appellant was jailed for nine days before the
triple count provision took effect on August 23, 2010. Thus, applying the
triple count provision, 552 days passed for purposes of speedy trial.
Beginning on August 14, 2010, and counting forward, speedy trial time was
tolled for one calendar day, or three speedy trial days, with the filing of
Appellant’s demand for discovery on September 29, 2010, and the State’s
answer thereto filed on the same day. Younker at ¶ 16 (“We do not include
the date the defendant files a motion or request in our count of days tolled
unless the filing date was also the date the court resolved the motion or the
prosecution responded to the request.”); citing State v. Staffin, 4th Dist. No.
07CA2967, 2008-Ohio-338, fn. 1.
{¶12}Subsequently, Appellant filed a motion for a competency
evaluation on October 27, 2010, which was not resolved until a hearing was
held on December 7, 2010, at which time a decision was apparently
announced orally. As such, applying the triple count provision, 123 days
were tolled for purposes of speedy trial time. Further, on December 14,
4
The date of arrest does not count against the State in computing speedy trial time. State v Younker, 4th
Dist. No. 07CA18, 2008-Ohio-6889, ¶ 15, citing State v. Madden, 10th Dist. No. 04AP-1228, 2005-Ohio-
4281, ¶ 28; Crim.R. 45(A).
Ross App. No. 11CA3267 10
2010, just one week before the scheduled December 21, 2010, trial,
Appellant’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw. The trial court issued an
order on December 22, 2010, granting Appellant’s counsel’s motion to
withdraw and simultaneously appointing new counsel. Thus, from
December 14, 2010 to December 22, 2010, 24 more days were tolled for
speedy trial purposes. At this time, taking into consideration the time tolled
due to motions filed by Appellant and applying the triple count provision,
225 days had elapsed for purposes of speedy trial. As such, the State had
until January 6, 2011, to bring Appellant to trial.5
{¶13}However, by a separate entry dated December 22, 2010, the trial
court sua sponte reassigned the trial date to February 23, 2011, without
citing its reasons for doing so or stating which party would be charged with
the time. While Appellant argues that the speedy trial clock began to run
again on December 23, 2011, the State contends that the trial court’s
continuance of the trial was attributed to Appellant’s counsel’s withdrawal,
and that the time from December 23, 2010, to the new trial date of February
23, 2011, should be tolled. Further, a review of the record reveals that the
trial court’s December 22, 2010, entry was simply time stamped by the
judge on that date, but was not journalized until January 11, 2011, which
5
Subtracting 225 days from 270 days results in 45 calendar days, or 15 speedy trial days taking into
account the triple count provision.
Ross App. No. 11CA3267 11
was five days after speedy trial time had run. See State v. Mincy, 2 Ohio
St.3d 6, 441 N.E.2d 571 (1982), syllabus (“When sua sponte granting a
continuance under R.C. 2945.72(H), the trial court must enter the order of
continuance and the reasons therefor by journal entry prior to the expiration
of the time limit prescribed in R.C. 2945.71 for bringing a defendant to
trial.”)
{¶14}Appellant relies upon the prior reasoning of this Court in State
v. Wagner, 88 Ohio App.3d 398, 623 N.E.2d 1338 (4th Dist. 1993) in support
of his argument that the speedy trial clock began to run after the filing of the
trial court’s December 22, 2010 entry. In Wagner, the Ohio Public Defender
moved for leave to withdraw as counsel for the defendant one week before
the scheduled trial. The trial court granted the motion and appointed new
counsel the day after the motion was filed, and then the trial court sua sponte
continued the trial for nearly four months. Id. at 401. There was no reason
for the continuance specified in the court’s journal entry. Id.
{¶15}The facts in Wagner are strikingly similar to the facts we are
presented with herein. Here, Appellant’s counsel also moved to withdraw
one week before the scheduled trial. The trial court granted the motion and
appointed new counsel eight days later on December 22, 2010. We are
mindful of the fact that this occurred one day after the trial was scheduled to
Ross App. No. 11CA3267 12
take place; however, at the point when new counsel was appointed for
Appellant, fifteen calendar days remained in which the trial should have
been scheduled. Further, much like the facts in Wagner and of key
importance, neither the State nor Appellant’s newly appointed trial counsel
requested a continuance. Id. at 403. Additionally, and as in Wagner, the
trial court’s entry reassigning the trial date did not include reasons for
continuing the trial date, nor did it identify the party to whom the
continuance was chargeable.
In Wagner, based upon similar facts, we reasoned as follows:
“The Ohio Supreme Court has held that, when sua sponte
granting a continuance, ‘the trial court must enter the order of
continuance and the reasons therefor by journal entry prior to
the expiration of the time limit * * * for bringing a defendant to
trial.’ (Emphasis added.) State v. Mincy (1982), 2 Ohio St.3d 6,
2 OBR 282, 441 N.E.2d 571, syllabus. The courts of appeals in
the state have given further expression to this principle by
requiring that the journalized continuance identify the party to
whom it is chargeable as well as indicate the reasons justifying
the continuance. See, generally, State v. Collura (1991), 72
Ohio App.3d 364, 368, 594 N.E.2d 975, 977; State v. Benson
Ross App. No. 11CA3267 13
(1985), 29 Ohio App.3d 321, 323, 29 OBR 448, 450, 505
N.E.2d 987, 990; State v. Geraldo (1983), 13 Ohio App.3d 27,
31, 13 OBR 29, 33, 468 N.E.2d 328, 332; State v. Broerman
(Feb. 18, 1983), Lucas App. No. L-82-284, unreported, 1983
WL 13845. A continuance which does not satisfy these
requirements must be counted against the state. Geraldo, supra,
13 Ohio App.3d at 31, 13 OBR at 33, 468 N.E.2d at 332.”
Wagner at 402.
See also State v. Corfias, 4th Dist. No. 93CA03, 1994 WL 501766
(Aug. 30, 1994), (“Generally, a continuance that properly extends the
speedy trial time must be recorded by the trial court in its journal
entry, which must identify the party to whom the continuance is
chargeable and, if the court is acting sua sponte, the journal entry must
so indicate and set forth the reasons justifying the continuance.”)
Thus, in Wagner, we ultimately held that because the lower court’s entry
failed to indicate any reason justifying the sua sponte continuance and also
failed to identify the party to whom it was chargeable, the additional time
must be counted against the State. Wagner at 402.
{¶16}This court acknowledged the holding of Wagner in State v.
Ross, 4th Dist. No. 04CA2780, 2005-Ohio-1888. However, noting factual
Ross App. No. 11CA3267 14
differences, namely in that the trial court’s entry in Ross specifically stated
that the reason for the continuance was due to counsel’s unavailability, we
declined to apply Wagner. Ross at ¶ 14. Further, we are mindful of our
more recent decision in State v. Staffin, 4th Dist. No. 07CA2967, supra,
which, at ¶ 11 seems to call into question the requirement that the trial court
identify the party against whom the continuance is chargeable. However,
because Staffin involved the State’s request for a continuance rather than a
sua sponte continuance by the court, we find it to be factually
distinguishable. Id. at ¶ 12. In fact, we find this distinction to be key in that
in ¶ 11, Staffin cites State v. Conkright, 6th Dist. No. L-06-1107, 2007-Ohio-
5315, ¶ 29 for the proposition that “[A]lthough the court must put the
reasons for continuance into a journal entry when it grants a sua sponte
continuance, when a state’s request for a continuance is granted, the reasons
need merely be in the record.”
{¶17}Based upon the foregoing, and following the reasoning
espoused in both Wagner and Mincy, supra, we do not believe that the trial
court’s December 22, 2010, entry reassigning the trial date to February 23,
2011, (which entry was not even journalized until January 11, 2011) tolled
speedy trial time. Rather, we conclude that the speedy trial clock began to
run again on December 23, 2010, after new counsel was appointed, and
Ross App. No. 11CA3267 15
continued to run until the filing of Appellant’s motion to dismiss on
February 19, 2011.6 At that time, 399 days had elapsed for purposes of
speedy trial. As such, the trial court erred in denying Appellant’s motion to
dismiss and/or for discharge.
{¶18}We share in the Supreme Court of Ohio’s reluctancy in reaching
this result, as expressed in State v. Mincy as follows:
“We are reluctantly aware that our decision requires that
appellee, convicted by a jury of a serious offense, be discharged
and that another prosecution on this charge is barred. R.C.
2945.73(D). However, we are equally mindful that we have
consistently held that the speedy trial statutes are mandatory
and must be strictly enforced. State v. Pachay (1980), 64 Ohio
St.2d 218, 221, 416 N.E.2d 589 [18 O.O.3d 427].” Mincy at fn.
3.
Obviously, the present case involves a no contest plea rather than a finding
of guilt by a jury; however, the end result is the same.
{¶19}Nonetheless, Appellant’s sole assignment of error is sustained,
the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the case is remanded for
discharge pursuant to R.C. 2945.73.
6
February 19, 2011 was actually tolled due to Appellant’s pro se filing of a request for a bill of particulars
on February 18, 2011.
Ross App. No. 11CA3267 16
JUDGMENT REVERSED.
Ross App. No. 11CA3267 17
JUDGMENT ENTRY
It is ordered that the JUDGMENT BE REVERSED and that the
Appellant recover of Appellee costs herein taxed.
The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing
the Ross County Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution.
IF A STAY OF EXECUTION OF SENTENCE AND RELEASE
UPON BAIL HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY GRANTED BY THE TRIAL
COURT OR THIS COURT, it is temporarily continued for a period not to
exceed sixty days upon the bail previously posted. The purpose of a
continued stay is to allow Appellant to file with the Supreme Court of Ohio
an application for a stay during the pendency of proceedings in that court. If
a stay is continued by this entry, it will terminate at the earlier of the
expiration of the sixty day period, or the failure of the Appellant to file a
notice of appeal with the Supreme Court of Ohio in the forty-five day appeal
period pursuant to Rule II, Sec. 2 of the Rules of Practice of the Supreme
Court of Ohio. Additionally, if the Supreme Court of Ohio dismisses the
appeal prior to expiration of sixty days, the stay will terminate as of the date
of such dismissal.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to
Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Exceptions.
Kline, J.: Concurs in Judgment and Opinion.
Abele, P.J.: Concurs in Judgment Only.
For the Court,
BY: _________________________
Matthew W. McFarland, Judge
NOTICE TO COUNSEL
Pursuant to Local Rule No. 14, this document constitutes a final
judgment entry and the time period for further appeal commences from
the date of filing with the clerk.
State v. Pollock
Combined Opinion