State v. Wyant

2026 Ohio 102

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: January 5, 2026
• Docket: 24CA 6 & 24CA7
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Wyant, 2026-Ohio-102.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAWRENCE COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, :

Plaintiff-Appellee, : Case No. 25CA6 25CA7 v. :

STEVEN D. WYANT, : DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

Defendant-Appellant. :

________________________________________________________________

APPEARANCES:

Brian T. Goldberg, Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellant.1

Brigham M. Anderson, Lawrence County Prosecuting Attorney, and Andrea M. Kratzenberg, Lawrence County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Ironton, Ohio, for appellee. ________________________________________________________________ CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM COMMON PLEAS COURT DATE JOURNALIZED:1-5-26 ABELE, J.

{¶1} This is an appeal from a Lawrence County Common Pleas

Court judgment of conviction and sentence. The trial court

found Steven D. Wyant, defendant below and appellant herein,

guilty of (1) aggravated possession of drugs, in violation of

R.C. 2925.11(A), (2) tampering with evidence, in violation of

R.C. 2921.12(A)(1), and (3) vandalism, in violation of R.C.

2909.05(B)(2). The court sentenced him to serve a total of 59

1 Different counsel represented appellant during the trial court proceedings. LAWRENCE 25CA6 & 25CA7 2

months in prison.

{¶2} Appellant assigns the following error for review:

“MR. WYANT’S SPEEDY TRIAL RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED UNDER R.C. 2945.71 AND THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING HIS MOTION TO DISMISS.”

{¶3} This case arises out of two criminal indictments that

the State filed against appellant. In the first case, on

January 26, 2024, a Lawrence County Grand Jury returned an

indictment that charged appellant with (1) aggravated possession

of drugs, in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), and (2)aggravated

trafficking in drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2). In the

second case, on July 29, 2024, a Lawrence County Grand Jury

returned an indictment that charged appellant with (1) tampering

with evidence, in violation of R.C. 2921.12(A)(1), and (2)

vandalism, in violation of R.C. 2909.05(B)(2).

{¶4} On February 4, 2025, appellant filed, in each case, a

“motion to calculate time.” Appellant asserted that the State

failed to bring him to trial within the statutory speedy-trial

limit and that this failure required the court to dismiss the

indictments.

{¶5} On February 5, 2025, the trial court held a hearing to

consider appellant’s motion. Appellant’s counsel indicated that

he would “defer to [his] client” who has “done this backwards

and forwards” and “believes that the State has not brought him LAWRENCE 25CA6 & 25CA7 3

to trial within time.” Appellant then explained that he had

been incarcerated for 115 days and that the triple-count

provision established that the State had not brought him to

trial within the statutory time limit.

{¶6} The trial court, however, advised appellant that the

triple-count provision did not apply because he was being held

on multiple charges under different indictments. Appellant

insisted that he did not think that the second case counted

separately. The trial court did not agree and pointed out that,

after the first indictment, appellant committed new offenses.

The court thus overruled appellant’s motion.

{¶7} Appellant subsequently agreed to enter no-contest

pleas to aggravated possession of drugs, tampering with

evidence, and vandalism. The State dismissed the aggravated-

trafficking charge.

{¶8} On February 14, 2025, the trial court sentenced

appellant to serve 24 months in prison for aggravated possession

of drugs, 24 months in prison for tampering with evidence, and

11 months in prison for vandalism. The court ordered appellant

to serve the sentences consecutively to one another for a total

of 59 months in prison. This appeal followed.

{¶9} In his sole assignment of error, appellant asserts

that the trial court erred by overruling his motion to dismiss.

Appellant contends that the trial court incorrectly determined LAWRENCE 25CA6 & 25CA7 4

that the triple-count provision did not apply. Appellant argues

that the two cases “were related, shared a common litigation

history, and were joined together for purposes of trial,” and

claims that the two cases are treated as the same pending charge

for purposes of the triple-count provision.

{¶10} Appellant states that he “was held in jail for 135

days awaiting trial on both cases.” He thus contends that,

under the triple-count provision, the State should have brought

him to trial within 90 days. Appellant argues that its failure

to do so establishes that the trial court should have dismissed

the two indictments.

{¶11} The State, on the other hand, contends that the second

indictment was based upon new offenses that occurred after it

had filed the first indictment. The State asserts that the

cases involved “two separate matters, stemming from two separate

dates and unrelated charges.” The State thus contends that the

triple-count provision did not apply.

A

{¶12} “Review of a speedy-trial claim involves a mixed

question of law and fact. 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.” State v. Long, 2020-Ohio-5363, ¶ 15;

accord State v. Smith, 2023-Ohio-1504, ¶ 13 (4th Dist.). LAWRENCE 25CA6 & 25CA7 5

B

{¶13} Criminal defendants are guaranteed the right to a

speedy trial under the Ohio and United States Constitutions.

Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (an “accused shall

enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial”); Ohio

Constitution, Article I, Section 10 (an accused has the right to

“a speedy public trial by an impartial jury”). The speedy-trial

guarantee “minimize[s] the possibility of lengthy incarceration

prior to trial,” “reduce[s] the lesser, but nevertheless

substantial, impairment of liberty imposed on an accused while

released on bail,” and “shorten[s] the disruption of life caused

by arrest and the presence of unresolved criminal charges.”

United States v. MacDonald, 456 U.S. 1, 8 (1982); accord State

v. Triplett, 78 Ohio St.3d 566, 568 (1997).

{¶14} Ohio’s speedy-trial provisions, R.C. 2945.71 to

2945.73, “constitute a rational effort to enforce the

constitutional right to a public speedy trial of an accused

charged with the commission of a felony or a misdemeanor.”

State v. Pachay, 64 Ohio St.2d 218 (1980), syllabus; accord

State v. Martin, 2019-Ohio-2010, ¶ 15; see Barker v. Wingo, 407

U.S. 514, 523 (1972) (states “are free to prescribe a reasonable

period consistent with constitutional standards”). To that end,

R.C. 2945.71 designates specific time requirements for the State

to try an accused. State v. Hughes, 86 Ohio St.3d 424, 425 LAWRENCE 25CA6 & 25CA7 6

(1999).

{¶15} In general, courts must “strictly construe the speedy

trial statutes against the [S]tate,” Brecksville v. Cook, 75

Ohio St.3d 53, 57 (1996), and must “strictly enforce the

legislative mandates evident in these statutes.” Pachay, 64

Ohio St.2d at 221; e.g., State v. Parker, 2007-Ohio-1534, ¶ 15.

Consequently, “[t]he prosecution and the trial courts have a

mandatory duty to try an accused within the time frame provided

by the statute.” Ramey at ¶ 14. If an accused is not brought to

trial within the time limits set forth in the speedy-trial

statutes, and if an exception does not apply, R.C. 2945.73(B)

requires the court, upon motion at or before trial, to discharge

the accused.

{¶16} As relevant in the case at bar, R.C. 2945.71(C)(2)

requires a person accused of a felony to be brought to trial

within 270 days of the individual’s arrest. “When computing how

much time has run against [the State] under R.C. 2945.71, we

begin with the day after the date [the defendant] was arrested.”

State v. Davis, 2013-Ohio-5311, ¶ 21 (4th Dist.), citing R.C.

1.14 and Crim.R. 45(A). Also, when calculating speedy-trial

time, courts ordinarily count “‘each day during which the

accused is held in jail in lieu of bail on the pending charge .

. . as three days.’” State v. Ramey, 2012-Ohio-2904, ¶ 15,

quoting R.C. 2945.71(E). LAWRENCE 25CA6 & 25CA7 7

{¶17} The triple-count provision, however, applies “only to

those defendants held in jail in lieu of bail solely on the

pending charge.” State v. Kaiser, 56 Ohio St.2d 29 (1978),

paragraph two of the syllabus. Thus, a defendant facing more

than one “pending charge” is not entitled to the triple-count

provision. See State v. Parker, 2007-Ohio-1534, ¶ 10, citing

State v. MacDonald, 48 Ohio St.2d 66 (1976), syllabus; State v.

Baker, 78 Ohio St.3d 108 (1997), syllabus. Accordingly, a

defendant is not entitled to the triple-count provision if the

State issues a subsequent indictment that contains additional

criminal charges that “arise from facts different from the

original charges” or from facts that the State did not know at

the time of the initial indictment. See Baker at syllabus. In

this situation, the defendant is not being held in jail solely

on the pending charge. On the other hand, “when multiple

charges arise from a criminal incident and share a common

litigation history, pretrial incarceration on the multiple

charges constitutes incarceration on the ‘pending charge’ for

the purposes of the triple-count provision . . . .” State v.

Parker, 2007-Ohio-1534, ¶ 21.

{¶18} In the case at bar, appellant was not held in jail

solely on a pending charge. Instead, after the initial

indictment the State issued a subsequent indictment that

contained additional criminal charges that arose from different LAWRENCE 25CA6 & 25CA7 8

facts than those alleged in the initial indictment, and the

State did not know of those facts at the time of the initial

indictment. Appellant’s situation thus falls squarely within

the Baker rule. Appellant was not, therefore, entitled to the

triple-count provision.

{¶19} Appellant nevertheless argues that the Parker rule

applies because the indictments are “related” and share a common

litigation history. Appellant claims that the indictments are

related because the second indictment resulted from his conduct

in tampering with the GPS monitor that the court had ordered him

to wear as a condition of being released on bond under the first

indictment. Parker does not, however, state that the triple-

count provision applies when a defendant is held in jail on

“related” indictments. Instead, it applies when a defendant is

held in jail on multiple charges that arise from “a criminal

incident.” Parker, 2007-Ohio-1534, at ¶ 21.

{¶20} Consequently, appellant’s two indictments in the case

sub judice did not arise from “a criminal incident.” Rather,

they arose from two different criminal incidents. The first

indictment, issued in January 2024, charged appellant with drug

offenses that allegedly occurred in August 2023. The second

indictment, issued in July 2024, charged appellant with

tampering with evidence and vandalism. The second indictment

alleged that the offenses occurred on June 26, 2024, after LAWRENCE 25CA6 & 25CA7 9

appellant had been arraigned on the first indictment. Thus, the

indictments did not arise from “a criminal incident” but from

multiple criminal incidents. Consequently, appellant’s

assertion that the triple-count provision applied is without

merit. See State v. Davis, 2023-Ohio-867, ¶ 36 (4th Dist.)

(concluding that the defendant was not entitled to the triple-

count provision when multiple indictments did “not originate

from one criminal incident and any common litigation history

likely occurred in the interest of judicial economy”). We

therefore do not agree with appellant that the State violated

his right to a speedy trial for failing to bring him to trial

within 90 days.

{¶21} Accordingly, based upon the foregoing reasons, we

overrule appellant’s sole assignment of error and affirm the

trial court’s judgment.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. LAWRENCE 25CA6 & 25CA7 10

JUDGMENT ENTRY

It is ordered that the judgment be affirmed and that appellant pay the 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 Lawrence 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 60 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 the proceedings in that court. If a stay is continued by this entry, it will terminate at the earlier of the expiration of the 60-day period, or the failure of the appellant to file a notice of appeal with the Supreme Court of Ohio in the 45-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 60 days, the stay will terminate as of the date of such dismissal.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute that mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Smith, P.J. & Hess, J.: Concur in Judgment & Opinion

For the Court

BY:_____________________________ Peter B. Abele, 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.