Once the statutory limit has expired, the defendant has established a prima facie case for dismissal. State v. Howard, 79 Ohio App.3d 705, 607 N.E.2d 1121 (8th Dist.1992). The burden then shifts to the state to demonstrate that sufficient time was tolled pursuant to R.C. 2945.72.
Once the statutory limit has expired, the defendant has established a prima facie case for dismissal. State v. Howard, 79 Ohio App.3d 705, 607 N.E.2d 1121 (8th Dist.1992). The burden then shifts to the state to demonstrate that sufficient time was tolled pursuant to R.C. 2945.72.
{¶ 17} If the defendant shows that he was not tried within 180 days, he has established a prima facie case for dismissal. State v. Howard (1992), 79 Ohio App.3d 705, 707, 605 N.E.2d 1121; State v. Geraldo (1983), 13 Ohio App.3d 27, 28, 468 N.E.2d 328. At that point, the burden is upon the state to demonstrate any tolling or extension of the time limit.
Thus, in order to avoid a prima facie case of a violation of a defendant's rights under the speedy trial statute, the state must commence trial within 90 days of arrest when the defendant is held in jail in lieu of bail. State v. Brown, 98 Ohio St.3d 121, 2002-Ohio-7040, at ¶ 14; State v. Howard (1992), 79 Ohio App.3d 705, 707. Furthermore, "[i]t is the responsibility of the trial court, with the assistance of the prosecuting attorney, to ensure that an accused is brought to trial within the mandatory time limits set forth in R.C. 2945.71."
Once the two-hundred-seventy-day statutory limit has expired, the defendant has established a prima facie case for dismissal. State v. Howard (1992), 79 Ohio App.3d 705, 707, 607 N.E.2d 1121, 1122; State v. Geraldo (1983), 13 Ohio App.3d 27, 28, 13 OBR 29, 30-31, 468 N.E.2d 328, 330-331. At that point, the burden is upon the state to demonstrate any tolling or extension of the time limit.
Once the statutory limit has expired, the defendant has established a prima facie case for dismissal. State v. Howard (1992), 79 Ohio App.3d 705, 607 N.E.2d 1121. At that point, the burden shifts to the state to demonstrate that sufficient time was tolled pursuant to R.C. 2945.72.
{¶ 53} Once the statutory time limit has expired, the defendant has established a prima facie case for dismissal. State v. Howard, 79 Ohio App.3d 705, 707, 607 N.E.2d 1121 (8th Dist.1992). At that point, the burden shifts to the state to demonstrate that sufficient time was tolled pursuant to R.C. 2945.72.
{¶ 8} Once the statutory time limit has expired, the defendant has established a prima facie case for dismissal. State v. Howard, 79 Ohio App.3d 705, 707, 607 N.E.2d 1121 (8th Dist.1992). At that point, the burden shifts to the state to demonstrate that sufficient time was tolled pursuant to R.C. 2945.72.
Once the statutory limit has expired, the defendant has established a prima facie case for dismissal. State v. Howard , 79 Ohio App.3d 705, 707, 607 N.E.2d 1121 (8th Dist.1992). The burden then shifts to the state to demonstrate that sufficient time was tolled pursuant to R.C. 2945.72.
{¶ 10} Once the statutory time limit has expired, the defendant has established a prima facie case for dismissal. State v. Howard, 79 Ohio App.3d 705, 707, 607 N.E.2d 1121 (1992). At that point, the burden shifts to the state to demonstrate that sufficient time was tolled pursuant to R.C. 2945.72.