State of Ohio v. Danielle K. Martin, Case No. 2017-1463
Eleventh District Court of Appeals (Trumbull County)

ISSUE: Does a speedy-trial time calculation stop when a trial court agrees to delay a case but doesn't journalize its decision?

BACKGROUND:
Police officers arrested Danielle Martin in November 2015 for various traffic and criminal violations, including operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs (OVI), reckless operation, failing to comply with a police officer's order, and not wearing a seat belt.

Martin appeared with her attorney in court for a pre-trial hearing on Dec. 14, 2015. At the attorney's request, the Trumbull County trial court granted continuances in the case to give more time for steps such as reviewing discovery and considering a plea deal.

On March 14, 2016, the court set a trial date of March 28. On that date, the judge reset the trial for May 2 "for good cause shown" and later moved the trial to May 16 "due to conflicting notices." On May 16, Martin's attorney informed the court that he had to withdraw from the case, and Martin found a new lawyer. The court granted additional continuances at the new attorney's request.

On June 29, Martin's attorney filed a request to dismiss the case asserting that Martin's right to a speedy trial had been violated. The trial court denied the motion on Aug. 18. Martin submitted a motion on Sept. 7 asking the court to reconsider the decision. In October, Martin pleaded no contest to fewer charges, including the OVI.