Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State of Ohio v. Robert E. James

November 7, 2011

STATE OF OHIO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
v.
ROBERT E. JAMES
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT



CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal Appeal from Cambridge Municipal Court Case Nos. 09CRB03160 A, B, and C

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Edwards, J.

Cite as State v. James,

: JUDGES: : W. Scott Gwin, P.J. : Sheila G. Farmer, J. : Julie A. Edwards, J.

OPINION

JUDGMENT: Reversed; Final Judgment Entered

[Cite as State v. James, 2011-Ohio-5792.]

{¶1} Appellant, Robert E. James, appeals a judgment of the Cambridge Municipal Court convicting him of resisting arrest (R.C. 2921.33) and disorderly conduct (R.C. 2917.11(A)(2)) upon pleas of no contest and sentencing him to three days incarceration and 51 days of house arrest. Appellee is the State of Ohio.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND CASE

{¶2} At 1:20 a.m. on September 30, 2009, the Southeastern Ohio Regional Medical Center called the police to check on a patient causing problems at the hospital. Ptl. David Long and Lt. Kevin Love responded to the call. Upon arriving at the hospital, Ptl. Long approached appellant. A nurse indicated to Lt. Love that appellant had been in an automobile accident and voluntarily appeared at the hospital for treatment. She told Lt. Love that appellant had been causing problems and had gone outside naked before officers arrived.

{¶3} Appellant attempted to leave, shoving Patrolman Long. The officers decided to detain appellant. Appellant proceeded out the door with the officers in pursuit. Lt. Love grabbed appellant's arm and asked him to hold on until the officers figured out what was going on. Lieutenant Love told appellant they were going to place him in the patrol car and detain him until they could ascertain what happened at the hospital. Appellant tried to pull away, yelled, cursed and asked what he was being arrested for. Appellant was advised that he was not under arrest, he was merely being detained. Appellant yelled "you motherfuckers" at the officers. At this point appellant was arrested for disorderly conduct.

{¶4} Appellant struggled with the officers on the hood of the vehicle. He continued to threaten the officers and was ultimately tasered. Appellant was charged with one count of resisting arrest and two counts of disorderly conduct.

{¶5} On October 6, 2009, appellant entered pleas of not guilty to all charges. The court scheduled trial to the bench for December 7, 2009.

{¶6} On November 13, 2009, appellant filed a motion for discovery. The State filed a response to the motion, providing the requested discovery on November 18, 2009.

{¶7} Appellant filed a jury demand on November 24, 2009. On November 25, 2009, the court filed an entry recognizing appellant's jury demand and stating:

{¶8} "It is the Court's local procedure to require the counsel for Defendant to schedule a pretrial conference directly with the Law Director's office prior to setting the date for jury trial.

{¶9} "Counsel for the Defendant is ordered to notify the Court in writing when the pre-trial has been conducted, so that the jury trial date may be set, or in the event of a negotiated resolution, a date for hearing on other terms.

{¶10} "So that the case may be brought to trial within the speedy trial limits, the parties are ordered to complete their reciprocal discovery as soon as time permits, and to timely schedule the pre-trial conference between respective counsel."

{ΒΆ11} On December 3, 2009, a pretrial memo was filed with the court reflecting that a plea offer had been made by the State which would ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.