[Cite as State v. Manacapilli, 2013-Ohio-4270.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF WAYNE )
STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 12CA0056
Appellee
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN THE
VIRGINIA A. MANACAPILLI WAYNE COUNTY MUNICIPAL COURT
COUNTY OF WAYNE, OHIO
Appellant CASE No. TRD 12-07-06204
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: September 30, 2013
CARR, Judge.
{¶1} Appellant, Virginia Manacapilli, appeals the judgment of the Wayne County
Municipal Court. This Court reverses and remands.
I.
{¶2} On June 9, 2012, Manacapilli was pulled over in the Village of Mount Eaton and
cited for speeding, a minor misdemeanor. On June 25, 2012, Manacapilli appeared in Mount
Eaton Mayor’s Court and entered a plea of not guilty. On July 2, 2012, the mayor’s court
certified the case and ordered that it be transferred to Wayne County Municipal Court.
Arraignment in municipal court was set for July 11, 2012. While Manacapilli appeared in court
on July 11, 2012, the arraignment was continued until July 18, 2012, at which time Manacapilli
pleaded not guilty. Subsequently, on August 16, 2012, Manacapilli filed a motion to dismiss the
charge on the basis that the speedy trial time had expired. The trial court denied the motion that
same day.
2
{¶3} The matter proceeded to trial and Manacapilli was found guilty of speeding. She
received a $150 fine and her license was suspended for six months.
{¶4} Manacapilli filed a timely notice of appeal. Now before this Court, Manacapilli
raises one assignment of error.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO DISMISS THE CHARGE
PURSUANT TO R.C. 2945.73.
{¶5} In her sole assignment of error, Manacapilli contends that the trial court erred in
denying her motion to dismiss. We agree.
{¶6} In support of her assignment of error, Manacapilli argues that the trial court’s
failure to dismiss the charge against her contravened the Supreme Court of Ohio’s interpretation
of the speedy trial statutes articulated in Brecksville v. Cook, 75 Ohio St.3d 53 (1996).
Manacapilli contends that, because she was not brought to trial in a timely manner as mandated
by R.C. 2945.71, the charge against her should have been dismissed pursuant to R.C. 2945.73.
The State concedes that the trial court erred in denying Manacapilli’s motion to dismiss.
{¶7} R.C. 2945.71(A) states, “a person against whom a charge is pending in a court not
of record, or against whom a charge of minor misdemeanor is pending in a court of record, shall
be brought to trial within thirty days after the person’s arrest or the service of summons.”
Pursuant to R.C. 2945.72(F), “[t]he time within which an accused must be brought to trial * * *
may be extended only by * * * [a]ny period of delay necessitated by a removal or change of
venue pursuant to law[.]” R.C. 2945.73(B) elaborates that “[u]pon motion made at or prior to the
commencement of trial, a person charged with an offense shall be discharged if he is not brought
to trial within the time required by [R.C. 2945.71[.]”
3
{¶8} In a case that directly informs our analysis in this matter, the Supreme Court of
Ohio held that, while the transfer of a case from a mayor’s court to municipal court does
constitute “removal” as contemplated by R.C. 2945.72, the tolling period extends only from “the
date of arrest or summons until the date of certification to the municipal court.” Brecksville v.
Cook, 75 Ohio St.3d 53, 58 (1996).
{¶9} Here, Manacapilli was cited for speeding on June 9, 2012. After Manacapilli
initially appeared in Mount Eaton Mayor’s Court, the case was certified to Wayne County
Municipal Court on July 2, 2012. Thus, the speedy trial clock began to run on July 2, 2012, and
it is inconsequential for speedy trial purposes that Manacapilli was not arraigned in the municipal
court until July 18, 2012. Cook, 75 Ohio St.3d at 58. Pursuant to R.C. 2945.71, the State was
required to bring Manacapilli to trial within 30 days of the July, 2, 2012 certification date. On
August 16, 2012, prior to trial, Manacapilli filed a motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds.
Given that Manacapilli filed her motion well after the 30-day window had expired, the trial court
erred by denying the motion and proceeding to trial.
{¶10} Manacapilli’s assignment of error is sustained.
III.
{¶11} Manacapilli’s assignment of error is sustained. The judgment of the Wayne
County Municipal Court is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent
with this decision.
Judgment reversed,
and cause remanded.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
4
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Wayne County
Municipal Court, County of Wayne, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A
certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of
judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the
period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is
instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the
mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to Appellee.
DONNA J. CARR
FOR THE COURT
MOORE, P. J.
BELFANCE, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
JOHN E. JOHNSON, JR., Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
DANIEL R. LUTZ, Prosecuting Attorney, and NATHAN R. SHAKER, Assistant Prosecuting
Attorney, for Appellee.