State v. Steiner

Ohio Ct. App.

Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

Citations: 71 Ohio App. 3d 249, 593 N.E.2d 368, 1991 Ohio App. LEXIS 994

Decision Date: 3/6/1991

Docket Number: No. 14784

Jurisdiction: OH

Bluebook Citation: State v. Steiner, 71 Ohio App. 3d 249, 593 N.E.2d 368, 1991 Ohio App. LEXIS 994 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991)

More Cases: Ohio Ct. App. decisions from 1991

Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

Frequently CitedTop 14% most-cited · cited by 27 decisions

Citing decisions

Courts citing

Citations by decade

1990s2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

Ohio Ct. App.24

Ohio App. Ct.3

Most recently cited by10

2022State v. B.C. Ohio Ct. App.
2021State v. Mathias Ohio Ct. App.
2021State v. Lewis Ohio Ct. App.
2018State v. King Ohio Ct. App.
2018State v. Binks Ohio App. Ct.
2017State v. Carter Ohio App. Ct.
2017State v. Agostini Ohio App. Ct.
2017State v. Phillips Ohio Ct. App.
2014State v. Gibson Ohio Ct. App.
2013State v. Sweeting Ohio Ct. App.

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.

Opinion

The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. STEINER, Appellant.

Judges

Quillin, P.J., and Cook, J., concur.

Attorneys

Philip Bogdanoff, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Michael E. Edminister, for appellant.

majority Baird, Judge.

This cause comes before the court upon the appeal of John Steiner from his conviction in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas for trafficking in marijuana, R.C. 2925.03(A)(7), a second-degree felony.

The sole issue presented on appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion to dismiss for failure to commence trial within the time period specified by R.C. 2945.71:

it * * *

“(C) A person against whom a charge of felony is pending:

(( * * *

“(2) Shall be brought to trial within two hundred seventy days after his arrest.

“(E) For purposes of computing time under divisions (A), (B), (C)(2), and (D) of this section, each day during which the accused is held in jail in lieu of bail on the pending charge shall be counted as three days. * * * ”

Because appellant was being held in jail in lieu of bail, the state had ninety days within which to bring him to trial. Appellant was arrested on May 18, 1990, and his trial began on August 16, 1990. Appellant asserts that his trial thus began on the ninety-first day of his incarceration, beyond the statutory time limit. The state contends that trial began on the ninetieth day after his arrest, as the day of arrest cannot be counted when computing the statutory time period.

R.C. 1.14 states in part:

“The time within which an act is required by law to be done shall be computed by excluding the first and including the last day; * *

Crim.R. 45 states in part:

“(A) Time: Computation. In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by these rules, by the local rules of any court, by order of court, or by any applicable statute, the date of the act or event from which the designated period of time begins to run shall not be included. * * * ”

Both the statute and criminal rule above make it clear that the day of arrest is not to be included when computing the time within which a defendant must be brought to trial under R.C. 2945.71. Appellant was therefore brought to trial within the ninety-day period prescribed by the statute.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Quillin, P.J., and Cook, J., concur.