 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Long12/28/1990
ation department, and a delay of almost six months in obtaining it might be found to be unnecessary delay for purposes of R.C. 2945.72(E). However, other factors, such as reliance on driving records, change of personnel under certain circumstances, or other like causes, may cause a court to find that the delay was necessary and the speedy trial requirements tolled thereby. The facts on which the court relied in finding otherwise are not apparent in the record.
Crim.R. 12(E) requires that for motions made prior to trial, " here factual issues are involved in determining a motion, the court shall state its essential findings on the record". Factual issues are involved here, and we are unable to review the error alleged absent the trial court's recitation of its findings concerning them in relation to R.C. 2945.71, 2945.72 and 2945.73.
We hold that the trial court erred in denying Long's motion for discharge without making findings of fact concerning the necessity of the delay resulting from her own motion for diversion and her consideration for the diversion program. The conviction is vacated and the matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
BROGAN and FAIN, JJ., concur.
|