Popular Posts
-
Typically, Ohio law prohibits a defendant from being sentenced for two crimes if the underlying conduct is the same for both crimes and if t...
-
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...
-
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...
-
Dawn Dixon, accused of stealing a minivan with a 4-year-old child inside, was hospitalized for unknown reasons while charges were pending ag...
-
NKY.com is reporting about the floating restaurant in Covington last night. Ruby's Riverfront restaurant floated away as a result of th...
-
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...
-
USA Today is reporting that Andrew Kelley's bond was denied on Friday. Kelley is being held for murder charges related to the shooting d...
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