State v. Kick
This text of 2012 Ohio 1806 (State v. Kick) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
[Cite as State v. Kick, 2012-Ohio-1806.]
COURT OF APPEALS HOLMES COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO JUDGES: Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P. J. Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J. Hon. John W. Wise, J. -vs- Case No. 11 CA 24 MICHAEL KICK
Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal Appeal from the Municipal Court, Case No. 11 CRB 489
JUDGMENT: Reversed and Vacated
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: April 23, 2012
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
CHRISTINE C. WILLIAMS BRYAN K. BARNARD ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR KENNEDY, CICCONETTI, KNOWLTON 164 East Jackson Street & BUYTENDYK, LPA Millersburg, Ohio 44654 558 North Market Street Wooster, Ohio 44691 Holmes County, Case No. 11 CA 24 2
Wise, J.
{¶1} Appellant Michael Kick appeals the December 13, 2011, Judgment Entry
of the Holmes County Municipal Court denying his motion to dismiss.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} Appellant Michael A. Kick was arrested on August 14, 2011, and charged
with one count of domestic violence, in violation of R.C. §2919.25 (A), a misdemeanor
of the first degree.
{¶3} Appellant spent the night in jail and appeared in the Holmes County
Municipal Court on August 15, 2011, then was released on his own recognizance and a
trial date set.
{¶4} Appellant, through counsel, filed a not guilty plea on August 17, 2011, and
requested formal discovery, to which the State responded on August 23, 2011.
Reciprocal discovery was timely answered on August 29, 2011.
{¶5} On November 9, 2011, the charge of domestic violence was dismissed
against the defendant and a new charge of disorderly conduct, R.C. §2917.11 (A)(1),
was filed on the same facts and circumstances.
{¶6} On November 14, 2011, Appellant acknowledged service of the new
complaint/summons.
{¶7} On November 30, 2011, Appellant was arraigned on the new charge and
his counsel filed a not guilty plea the same date. Trial was set for December 13, 2011.
{¶8} On December 12, 2011, counsel for Appellant filed a motion to dismiss on
speedy trial grounds. Holmes County, Case No. 11 CA 24 3
{¶9} By Judgment Entry filed December 13, 2011, the trial court denied
Appellant’s motion to dismiss. (T. at 3).
{¶10} On December 13, 2011, Appellant entered a plea of no contest and paid
his court costs that same date. (T. at 6).
{¶11} The following day, December 14, 2011, Appellant caused to be filed a
motion for stay of execution of sentence and escrow of costs paid. Appellant further filed
an affidavit stating inter alia, he did not intend to abandon appellate review by tendering
the costs, he has a substantial stake in the judgment of conviction, and he believes
there is valid subject matter for appellate court review
{¶12} It is from this judgment entry that Appellant now appeals, assigning the
following errors for review:
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶13} "I. THE TRIAL COURT’S APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO THE FACTS
OF THE CASE WAS IN ERROR.”
I.
{¶14} In Appellant’s sole Assignment of Error he argues that the trial court erred
in denying his motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds. We agree.
{¶15} The right to a speedy trial is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the
United States Constitution and Section 10, Article I of the Ohio Constitution. Pursuant to
these constitutional mandates, R.C. §2945.71 through R.C. §2945.73 prescribe specific
time requirements within which the State must bring an accused to trial. State v. Baker,
78 Ohio St.3d 108, 110, 1997-Ohio-229, 676 N.E.2d 883. Holmes County, Case No. 11 CA 24 4
{¶16} As relevant to the instant action, R.C. §2945.71(B)(2) requires that a
person, such as Appellant, against whom a first degree misdemeanor is pending must
be brought to trial within 90 days after the person's arrest or service of summons. Each
day the defendant is held in jail in lieu of bond, except for the first day, counts for three
days for speedy trial purposes. See R.C. §2945.71(E). Once a defendant establishes a
prima facie case of a violation of his right to a speedy trial, the burden then shifts to the
State to demonstrate the statutory limit was not exceeded by establishing the time was
properly extended pursuant to R.C. §2945.72. State v. Butcher (1986), 27 Ohio St.3d
28, 30–31, 500 N.E.2d 1368.
{¶17} Since a defendant's right to a speedy trial is guaranteed by statute and by
the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, extensions of
speedy trial time are to be strictly construed against the State. State v. Singer (1977),
50 Ohio St.2d 103, 362 N.E.2d 1216. Revised Code §2945.73 mandates that if an
accused is not brought to trial within the time requirements of R.C. §2945.71 and
§2945.72, the accused shall be discharged. The law in Ohio is that speedy trial time
starts to run the day after arrest. R.C. §2945.71. However, speedy trial time is tolled
during “(E) Any period of delay necessitated by ... motion, proceeding, or action made
or instituted by the accused; ...”(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.” R.C. §2945.72.
{¶18} In the case sub judice, Appellant was arrested on August 14, 2011, and
spent that night in jail.
{¶19} The time calculation is as follows: Holmes County, Case No. 11 CA 24 5
{¶20} 08/14/2011 Arrest date: - 3 days
{¶21} 08/15/2011 to 09/15/2011 - 32 days
{¶22} 09/16/2011 to 10/15/2011 - 30 days
{¶23} 10/16/2011 to 11/15/2011 - 31 days
{¶24} 11/16/2011 to 12/13/2011 - 28 days
{¶25} Total days elapsed = 124 days
{¶26} Appellant herein acknowledges that the speedy trial time was tolled during
the case for seven (7) days between August 17, 2011 and August 23, 2011, when
defense counsel requested discovery and the State responded to the request; and
again for the six (6) days between the nolle prosequi of the domestic violence charge on
November 9, 2011, and service of the disorderly conduct summons and
acknowledgment of the same on November 14, 2011, by the Appellant.
{¶27} Based on the above calculations, total days elapsed (124 days) minus
total days tolled (13 days) results in the passage of 111 days before Appellant’s trial
date, 21 days in excess of the statutorily prescribed ninety (90) day period.
{¶28} The State of Ohio concedes that the ninety (90) day statutory time for a
speedy trial was exceeded in this matter.
{¶29} Based on the foregoing, we find that the trial court erred in denying
Appellant's Motion to Dismiss on speedy trial grounds. Holmes County, Case No. 11 CA 24 6
{¶30} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Municipal Court of Holmes
County, Ohio, is hereby reversed and Appellant’s conviction and sentence are vacated.
By: Wise, J.
Delaney, P. J., and
Gwin, J., concur.
___________________________________
JUDGES JWW/d 0412 Holmes County, Case No. 11 CA 24 7
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR HOLMES COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2012 Ohio 1806, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-kick-ohioctapp-2012.