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. Chisolm

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth District

September 16, 2013

STATE OF OHIO Appellee
v.
MICHAEL D. CHISOLM Appellant

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF WAYNE, OHIO CASE No. 11-CR-0372.

ANDREW G. HYDE, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

JOHN M. WILLIAMS, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

CARLA MOORE, PRESIDING JUDGE.

(¶ 1}Defendant-Appellant, Michael D. Chisolm, appeals from his sentence and conviction as set forth in the May 21, 2012 judgment entry of the Wayne1 County Court of Common Pleas. We reverse.

I.

(¶ 2} Mr. Chisolm was indicted on five counts of forgery, in violation of R.C. 2913.31(A)(3), felonies of the fifth degree. The police arrested Mr. Chisolm and he was released from jail on personal recognizance. However, Mr. Chisolm failed to appear for his arraignment, causing the trial court to revoke his bond and issue a warrant for his arrest. Mr. Chisolm was rearrested on December 19, 2011, and appeared for his arraignment on December 20, 2011. He pleaded not guilty to all charges in the indictment. At that time, the trial court appointed him a public defender and set bond at $5000. Mr. Chisolm did not post bond and remained in the Wayne County Jail. A pretrial was held on February 29, 2012, where Mr. Chisolm met his court appointed attorney for the first time. The record indicates that Mr. Chisolm's attorney had not communicated with him prior to the pretrial because she was not aware of his incarceration, and her office did not accept collect calls from the jail.

(¶3} On January 5, 2012, Mr. Chisolm propounded Crim.R. 16(A) discovery upon the State, and the State responded on January 24, 2012. Further, on January 25, 2012, the State propounded reciprocal discovery upon Mr. Chisolm, which he answered five days later on January 30th.

(¶4} On April 10, 2012, Mr. Chisolm filed a motion to dismiss the indictment alleging that, pursuant to R.C. 2945.71, his right to a speedy trial was violated because more than ninety days had elapsed since his arrest. In his motion, Mr. Chisolm calculated time as follows:

Arrest: December 19, 2011

Arraignment: December 20, 2011

December: 13 days

January: 31 days

February: 29 days

March: 31 days

April: 9 days

Total: 113 days

Minus discovery: ...


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.