Popular Posts
-
Dawn Dixon, accused of stealing a minivan with a 4-year-old child inside, was hospitalized for unknown reasons while charges were pending ag...
-
A grand jury indicted Gerth on 12 counts, including 2 counts of murder, related to the high-speed chase that killed two individuals. Gerth ...
-
Bruce Sims was wanted for allegedly raping a minor just after midnight on Tuesday, April 19, 2011. He voluntarily turned himself in later t...
-
The Twelfth District Court of Appeals of Ohio handed down another opinion regarding allied offenses . We previously explained allied offense...
-
Pursuant to R.C. 2945.71, defendants in Ohio have a right to a trial within 45 days. The issue in State v. Ignat, at the 12th District Cour...
-
The Enquirer reports that the Butler County OVI Task Force will conduct a checkpoint in Middletown tonight on Verity Parkway. As always, ma...
-
The AP is reporting that Governor Kasich may propose the sale of 5 prisons to private operators. A sale of the prisons would purportedly ra...
-
In State v. Roy , the 12th Appellate District of Ohio reversed a sentencing pursuant to Johnson . The appellate court found that the traffic...
-
The Twelfth Circuit upheld the 3 year sentence of Cooper. Cooper was charged with four counts of rape and four counts of felonious sexual ba...
-
In State v. McCree , the 12th Appellate District of Ohio upheld the 17 + 6 month sentence for trafficking cocaine + possession of cocaine. T...
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
State v. Ignat; right to a speedy trial
Pursuant to R.C. 2945.71, defendants in Ohio have a right to a trial within 45 days. The issue in State v. Ignat, at the 12th District Court of Appeals, was whether the defendant's right to a speedy trial was violated where the trial commenced 61 countable days after the arrest but where the state argued good cause for the delay. In that case, the state admitted that the trial did not commence until 61 days after her arrest (excluding a few days because of a waiver of the right to a speedy trial). The defendant claimed that the 61 days exceeded the statutory 45 day limit and requested dismissal of the case. The state argued that its delay was reasonable, because the arresting officer suffered a heart attack and was unable to testify at an earlier scheduled trial date. The Court of Appeals agreed, and affirmed the district court's conviction.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment