 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
City Of Richmond Heights v. Abriani8/24/2000
. In making its decision, the Court reasoned:
The trial court is charged with the duty of scheduling trial, and it would seem to be reasonable to require the defendant to formally inform the court of an objection to a further continuance, and a reassertion of the defendant's right to a speedy trial. Otherwise the trial court may reasonably rely upon the written waiver of speedy trial as filed within the case. Defendant here made no such objection or demand for trial, and his initial waiver thus remained effective. Id. at 9-10.
This Court, following O'Brien, similarly held in Village of Glenwillow v. Tomsick (1996), 111 Ohio App.3d 718, that Mr. Tomsick's failure to demand trial or revoke or attempt to revoke his waiver of his speedy trial rights barred his speedy trial claims. In Tomsick, he was arrested on November 24, 1994 and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol. Mr. Tomsick subsequently waived his speedy trial rights and his trial was originally scheduled for March 13, 1994. However, after requests for continuances from both the defense and the prosecutor and other delays, the trial did not commence until August 28, 1995, over nine months after his arrest. Prior to and at trial, defendant moved to dismiss the case alleging a violation of his right to speedy trial. After the trial court denied his motions, Mr. Tomsick asserted on appeal to this Court that the trial court erred in not granting his motions to dismiss based on his right to speedy trial. This Court held:
The record here indicates that Tomsick waived his right to speedy trial in both the Glenwillow Mayor's Court and in the Bedford Municipal Court. Although Tomsick filed an objection to the March 13, 1995 trial continuance, he never objected to any of the other continuances and in some instances instigated them. Additionally, at no time did Tomsick demand trial or revoke or attempt to revoke the waiver. Hence, in accordance with the holding in State v. O'Brien, supra, we conclude that the trial court tried Tomsick within a reasonable time after the service of summons and therefore did not violate his right to speedy trial. Accordingly, this assignment of error is not well taken and it is overruled. Id. at 723.
Similarly, in the instant case, the defendant cannot claim that he has been unconstitutionally denied a speedy trial until he has asserted his right by requesting a trial or objecting to a proposed continuance. On June 16, 1998, defense counsel waived defendant's speedy trial rights and requested that defendant's trial be held anytime either before August 1, 1998 or after August 31, 1998. On December 30, 1998, defendant was advised that his trial was scheduled for January 27, 1999 and on January 20, 1999, defendant filed his motion to dismiss pursuant to R.C. 2945.71(B)(2). Defendant's trial was later rescheduled for February 24, 1999.
The record reflects that at no time did defendant demand trial, object to a continuance or revoke or attempt to revoke his waiver after his Waiver of Time. Absent some trial demand or objection to delay during the seven months between his waiver and trial, defendant cannot claim that he has been denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial. See O'Brien, supra; Tomsick, supra; Waltz, supra. Defendant also has not demonstrated any prejudice resulting from the time period after his speedy trial waiver. Therefore, in accordance with O'Brien, we find that the trial court's nine and half-month delay for defendant's trial was not unreasonable and he cannot now claim a violation of the statutory time limits as a basis for the dismissal of this case.
Defendant's sole assignment of error is overruled. Judgment affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|