State v. Howard

71 Citing cases

  1. State v. McCaughey

    2018 Ohio 3167 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018)

    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.

  2. State v. McCaughey

    2018 Ohio 2231 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018)

    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.

  3. State v. Munns

    2006 Ohio 1852 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006)

    {¶ 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.

  4. State v. Bradley

    2005 Ohio 6572 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)

    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."

  5. State v. Mays

    108 Ohio App. 3d 598 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 104 times
    Holding that the Ohio statutory speedy-trial provisions are coextensive with the constitutional speedy-trial provisions

    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.

  6. City of South Euclid v. Njoku

    2022 Ohio 4388 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022)

    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.

  7. State v. Yates

    2022 Ohio 76 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022)

    {¶ 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. City of Cleveland v. Smerglia

    2020 Ohio 3181 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020)

    {¶ 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.

  9. State v. Busek

    2019 Ohio 4683 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019)

    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. City of Cleveland v. Dancy

    2019 Ohio 2433 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019)

    {¶ 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.