State v. Valentino
This text of 2025 Ohio 2721 (State v. Valentino) 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. Valentino, 2025-Ohio-2721.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF MEDINA )
STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 2024CA0077-M
Appellee
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE NICHOLAS J. VALENTINO COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF MEDINA, OHIO Appellant CASE No. 2023CR0797
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: August 4, 2025
HENSAL, Judge.
{¶1} Nicholas Valentino has appealed the trial court’s denial of his motions to dismiss
for violation of his speedy trial rights and its denial of his motion to strike the State’s response to
his motions. For the following reasons, this Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} On November 1, 2023, the Grand Jury indicted Mr. Valentino on one count of
menacing by stalking. At the time of the indictment, Mr. Valentino was being held in jail related
to another matter and he remained in jail until his trial. On November 16, 2023, the trial court
arraigned Mr. Valentino, and he made a demand for discovery and motion to reduce bond. The
court also set Mr. Valentino’s trial for January 8, 2024. On December 14, 2023, Mr. Valentino
moved for a change of venue and for the transcript of the grand jury proceedings. He filed a motion
for expedited rulings and several motions in limine on December 22, 2023. 2
{¶3} On January 8, 2024, the trial court held a hearing and orally denied the motions to
change venue and for a grand jury transcript. It continued the trial until March 18, 2024, explaining
that it had to hear a different criminal case that day. The court also found that the continuance was
reasonable and that Mr. Valentino’s speedy trial time was tolled until the new trial date. On
January 29, 2024, the court issued a journal entry that denied the motion for change of venue, for
grand jury transcript, and for bond modification. The entry also stated that the motions in limine
would be ruled on before or during the trial, and that, because of the court and defense counsel’s
unavailability, Mr. Valentino’s trial had been rescheduled for March 18 and his speedy trial time
was tolled under Revised Code Section 2945.72(C), (E), and (H). On March 18th, before trial
commenced, Mr. Valentino orally moved to dismiss the charges on speedy trial grounds, but the
trial court denied his motion. He renewed his motion at the end of the trial, but the trial court
denied it again. A jury found Mr. Valentino guilty of the offense, and the court sentenced him to
12 months in jail. The State subsequently filed a written response to Mr. Valentino’s motions to
dismiss. Mr. Valentino moved to strike the filing, but the trial court denied his motion. Mr.
Valentino has appealed the denial of his motions to dismiss and his motion to strike.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT DENIED APPELLANT’S MOTION(S) TO DISMISS FOR VIOLATION OF HIS SPEEDY TRIAL RIGHTS, AND ERRED IN NOT STRIKING THE STATE’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION.
{¶4} Mr. Valentino argues that the trial court incorrectly denied his motions to dismiss
and incorrectly denied his motion to strike the State’s supplemental response to those motions.
Regarding the motions to dismiss, Revised Code Section 2945.71(C)(2) provides that a person
charged with a felony must be brought to trial within 270 days after the person’s arrest. Each day 3
that a person is held in jail on the charge counts as three days. R.C. 2945.71(E). ”Review of a
speedy-trial claim involves a mixed question of law and fact.” State v. Long, 2020-Ohio-5363, ¶
15. “Therefore, we defer to the trial court's factual findings if they are supported by competent,
credible evidence, but we review the application of the law to those facts de novo.” Id.
{¶5} Mr. Valentino’s argument does not focus on the calculation of days, but on the
State’s response to his motions. He notes that this Court has held that, if a defendant makes a
prima facie showing that his case has been pending for a time that exceeds the statutory limit, the
burden shifts to the State to show that a tolling event extended the time for trial. State v. Gaines,
2004-Ohio-3407, ¶ 12 (9th Dist.). He also notes that, when he initially moved to dismiss the
charges before trial started, the State was not prepared to respond to it. He, therefore, argues that
the court should have granted his motion by default.
{¶6} After Mr. Valentino made his oral motion to dismiss, the State stated that it had not
had the opportunity to run the calculations that Mr. Valentino had gone through or determine if
there were any other applicable tolling events. Counsel for the State stated that he would have to
look at the docket with the same amount of detail as Mr. Valentino and make a careful examination
of the issue. Following the State’s response the trial court denied the motion to dismiss “at this
time . . . .” After the State and Mr. Valentino finished presenting their cases, Mr. Valentino
renewed his motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds. The trial court asked the State if it was
prepared to address the issue, and counsel for the State replied that he had had an opportunity to
examine the issue briefly. He argued that, because the trial was continued because of other cases
that needed to be heard first, the days after the continuance did not count toward the speedy-trial
deadline and the case was being tried within the statutory requirement. 4
{¶7} Upon review of the record, it appears that the trial court construed the State’s
response to the initial motion to dismiss as a request for additional time to respond and, therefore,
denied the motion at that time. When Mr. Valentino renewed his motion, the State presented an
explanation as to why time that Mr. Valentino had counted toward the 270-day deadline did not
count. Mr. Valentino has not developed an argument that challenges the State’s explanation. We,
therefore, conclude that the State did not fail to meet its burden of establishing that a tolling event
extended the speedy-trial deadline for Mr. Valentino’s trial. See Gaines at ¶ 12; State v. Butcher,
27 Ohio St.3d 28, 30-31 (1986).
{¶8} Regarding the State’s supplemental brief on the motions to dismiss, following trial,
the State filed a written response to Mr. Valentino’s motion to dismiss. Mr. Valentino moved to
strike the document because it was untimely, the case had closed, and there was no motion to
dismiss pending at the time. The trial court, however, denied its motion.
{¶9} Even if the trial court should have granted Mr. Valentino’s motion to strike, we
conclude that the error was harmless. Crim.R. 52(A). As Mr. Valentino noted, the trial had
concluded and there was no motion to dismiss pending at the time of the State’s filing.
Accordingly, he has failed to establish that the purported error affected a substantial right. See id.
Mr. Valentino’s assignment of error is overruled.
III.
{¶10} Mr. Valentino’s assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Medina
County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed. 5
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common
Pleas, County of Medina, 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
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2025 Ohio 2721, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-valentino-ohioctapp-2025.