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. Miles

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth District

September 30, 2013

STATE OF OHIO Appellee
v.
RICHARD MILES, II Appellant

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF MEDINA, OHIO CASE No. 12 CR 0001

MICHAEL WESTERHAUS, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

DEAN HOLMAN, Prosecuting Attorney, and LAUREN M. HASE, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

(¶1} Richard Miles II appeals his conviction for possession of cocaine in the Medina County common pleas court. For the following reasons, this Court affirms.

I.

(¶2} According to Medina County Sheriffs Deputy Paul Schismenos, he was on duty on the evening of December 19, 2011, when he saw Mr. Miles fail to come to a complete stop at a stop sign. Deputy Schismenos began following Mr. Miles and saw him fail to use a turn signal when merging into highway traffic and fail to stay in his lane of travel. He, therefore, initiated a traffic stop. When he approached the car and Mr. Miles lowered the window, Deputy Schismenos immediately noticed the odor of raw marijuana. After Bosco, a canine officer's dog, also alerted on the car, officers conducted a search of it and found marijuana and cocaine.

(¶3} The Grand Jury indicted Mr. Miles for possession of cocaine. He moved to suppress the evidence obtained during the traffic stop, arguing that Deputy Schismenos improperly extended the length of the stop until the canine officer could arrive. The trial court denied his motion, and a jury found him guilty of the offense. The court sentenced him to 11 years imprisonment. Mr. Miles has appealed, assigning as error that the trial court violated his right to a speedy trial.

II.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

THE COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILING TO BRING HIM TO TRIAL WITHIN 90 DAYS AS PROVIDED IN OHIO REVISED CODE SECTION 2945.71.

(¶4} Mr. Miles argues that the trial court should have dismissed his case because he was not tried within the time allowed under Revised Code Section 2945.71. Under Section 2945.71(C), "[a] person against whom a charge of felony is pending * * * [s]hall be brought to trial within two hundred seventy days after the person's arrest." "[E]ach day during which the accused is held in jail in lieu of bail on the pending charge shall be counted as three days." R.C. 2945.71(E).

(¶5} "When reviewing an assignment of error raising a violation of a criminal defendant's right to a speedy trial, this court reviews questions of law de novo." State v. Bennett, 9th Dist. Summit No. 21121, 2003-Ohio-238, ¶ 5. We must accept the factual findings of the trial court, however, "if they are supported by some competent, credible evidence." Id.

(¶6} Mr. Miles's speedy trial time began on December 19, 2011, when he was arrested and held without bail. On January 13, 2012, he requested discovery, which the State provided on January 27. On February 21, he filed his motion to suppress evidence. The trial court held a hearing on the motion on March 30 and issued its decision on June 11. Mr. Miles subsequently requested a continuance of the trial date because of newly discovered evidence. The trial was rescheduled for July 9, but on that day, Mr. Miles moved for a continuance to obtain new counsel. The trial court granted his motion. On July 24, the parties mutually agreed to schedule the trial for September 24.

(¶7} Under Revised Code Section 2945.72(E), "[t]he time within which an accused must be brought to trial * * * may be extended * * * by * * * [a]ny period of delay necessitated by reason of a * * * motion * * * or action made or instituted by the accused[.]" Mr. Miles concedes that all of the delays in going to trial were attributable to him except for the trial court's delay in ruling on his motion to suppress. He notes that, at the conclusion of the hearing on his motion, the trial court said that it would try to issue a decision "by the end of next week." At the time, his trial was scheduled for April 23. Mr. Miles contends that, because the trial court did not provide any explanation for why it did not rule on his motion until June 11, the 49 days that passed from April 23 to June 11 should be attributed to the State. Combined with the 25 days between when he was arrested and ...


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.