State v. Taylor

Ohio Court of Appeals

State v. Taylor

352 N.E.2d 604, 47 Ohio App. 2d 171, 1 Ohio Op. 3d 259, 1975 WL 180675, 1975 Ohio App. LEXIS 5871

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 6, 1975

Docket2296 and 2297

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 352 N.E.2d 604 (State v. Taylor) 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.

Bluebook

State v. Taylor, 352 N.E.2d 604, 47 Ohio App. 2d 171, 1 Ohio Op. 3d 259, 1975 WL 180675, 1975 Ohio App. LEXIS 5871 (Ohio Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinions

Victor, P. J.

Thomas Anthony Taylor was arrested and incarcerated on May 23,1974. He was bound over to the grand jury and on June 19, 1974, he was indicted for kidnapping, rape and aggravated robbery (sis counts).

On July 12,1974, a pre-trial hearing was held. As Taylor maintained his innocence, a trial was set for September 25, 1974, by agreement between the prosecutor, defense counsel, and an officer of the court.

On September 4, 1974, Henderson (defense counsel) withdrew as counsel and attorney Larry Coey was appointed to represent Taylor. On September 19, 1974, attorney Coey filed a motion to dismiss the indictment because the defendant had not been granted a speedy trial. This motion *172 was overruled. A trial was had on four counts of the indictment (a motion to sever two counts having been sustained) and defendant was found guilty of all counts. On October 7,1974, Taylor entered a plea of guilty to the remaining two counts. He was sentenced on all counts pursuant to law.

In his appeal, he asserts that the court erred when it overruled his motion to dismiss the indictment for failure to provide him with a speedy trial. Taylor was confined in jail for more than 90 days before he was brought to trial. R. C. 2945.71 provides, in substance, that a person who is confined in jail must be brought to trial within 90 days after his arrest.

If he is not and no valid reason is given for such failure, he must be discharged pursuant to N. C. 2945.73. A request by a defendant for continuance beyond the 90 day period is sufficient cause to prevent his discharge. See, R. C. 2945.72 (H). We hold that the voluntary agreement of defendant’s counsel, on behalf of his client, for a trial date beyond the 90 day period is a continuance pursuant to R. C. 2945.72(H) which will bar defendant’s discharge. Such action by counsel cannot be repudiated by the defendant and constitutes a waiver of his statutory right to trial within the 90 day period. We affirm the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

Beenneman, J., concurs. Mahoney, J., concurs in the judgment only.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Victor, P. J.

Thomas Anthony Taylor was arrested and incarcerated on May 23,1974. He was bound over to the grand jury and on June 19, 1974, he was indicted for kidnapping, rape and aggravated robbery (sis counts).

On July 12,1974, a pre-trial hearing was held. As Taylor maintained his innocence, a trial was set for September 25, 1974, by agreement between the prosecutor, defense counsel, and an officer of the court.

On September 4, 1974, Henderson (defense counsel) withdrew as counsel and attorney Larry Coey was appointed to represent Taylor. On September 19, 1974, attorney Coey filed a motion to dismiss the indictment because the defendant had not been granted a speedy trial. This motion *172 was overruled. A trial was had on four counts of the indictment (a motion to sever two counts having been sustained) and defendant was found guilty of all counts. On October 7,1974, Taylor entered a plea of guilty to the remaining two counts. He was sentenced on all counts pursuant to law.

In his appeal, he asserts that the court erred when it overruled his motion to dismiss the indictment for failure to provide him with a speedy trial. Taylor was confined in jail for more than 90 days before he was brought to trial. R. C. 2945.71 provides, in substance, that a person who is confined in jail must be brought to trial within 90 days after his arrest.

If he is not and no valid reason is given for such failure, he must be discharged pursuant to N. C. 2945.73. A request by a defendant for continuance beyond the 90 day period is sufficient cause to prevent his discharge. See, R. C. 2945.72 (H). We hold that the voluntary agreement of defendant’s counsel, on behalf of his client, for a trial date beyond the 90 day period is a continuance pursuant to R. C. 2945.72(H) which will bar defendant’s discharge. Such action by counsel cannot be repudiated by the defendant and constitutes a waiver of his statutory right to trial within the 90 day period. We affirm the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

Beenneman, J., concurs. Mahoney, J., concurs in the judgment only.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

352 N.E.2d 604, 47 Ohio App. 2d 171, 1 Ohio Op. 3d 259, 1975 WL 180675, 1975 Ohio App. LEXIS 5871, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-taylor-ohioctapp-1975.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack