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 v. Kasler

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District

June 21, 2013

STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
JOHNNIE KASLER, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas Court, Case No. 11 CR 147/404.

For Plaintiff-Appellee GREGG MARX Prosecuting Attorney By: Jocelyn S. Kelly Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Fairfield County, Ohio.

For Defendant-Appellant DAVID A. SAMS.

Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J.

OPINION

Hoffman, J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Johnnie Kasler appeals the September 25, 2012 Judgment Entry entered by the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas denying his petition for post conviction relief. Plaintiff-appellee is the state of Ohio.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE[1]

{¶2} Appellant filed a direct appeal from his conviction and sentence in State v. Kasler, Fairfield App. 11 CA 59, 2012-Ohio-6073. Appellant then filed a petition for post-conviction relief in the trial court, which was denied via Judgment Entry of September 25, 2012.

{¶3} Appellant appeals that denial, assigning as error:

{¶4} "I. THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT WAS DENIED THE RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL CONTRARY TO OHIO LAW AND THE STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS."

{¶5} On direct appeal to this Court in State v. Kasler, 5th Dist. No. 11CA59, 2012-Ohio-6073, Appellant argued his right to a speedy trial had been violated. This Court held "only 92 days elapsed of the 270 days within which appellant had to be brought to trial even if the time following the mistrial is counted." This Court also held the triple-count provision did not apply once the charges of the indictment were severed upon Appellant's motion.

{¶6} This Court's December 20, 2012 Opinion reads,

{¶7} "Appellant argues that because the felonious assault charges arose out of the same set of facts as the original rape and attempted rape charges, the time within which he should be brought to trial began to run with the original indictment.

{¶8} "Subsequent charges made against an accused are subject to the same speedy-trial constraints as the original charges, if the additional charges arose from the same facts as the first indictment. State v. Adams, 43 Ohio St.3d 67, 68, 538 N.E .2d 1025, 1027 (1989). However, the state is not subject to the speedy-trial timetable of the initial indictment when additional criminal charges arise from facts different from the original charges, or ...


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.