Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Licking
from the Licking County Municipal Court, Case No. 17TRD11259
Plaintiff-Appellee TRICIA M. MOORE Assistant Law Director.
Defendant-Appellant SAMUEL H. SHAMANSKY DONALD L.
REGENSBURGER COLIN E. PETERS.
W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Hon. John W. Wise, J. Hon. Craig R.
Defendant-appellant Todd C. Cumbow appeals his conviction and
sentence from the Licking County Municipal Court.
Plaintiff-appellee is the State of Ohio.
OF THE FACTS AND CASE
On September 13, 2017, appellant was charged with speeding in
violation of R.C. 4511.21, a minor misdemeanor. The complaint
alleged that appellant was driving 62 miles per hour in a 45
mile per hour zone. Appellant, on September 19, 2017, filed a
written plea of not guilty and demand for trial. In the same,
he indicated that he was not waiving his right to a speedy
trial. A bench trial was scheduled for October 4, 2017.
Thereafter, on September 29, 2017, the State filed a motion
for a continuance of the trial on the basis that Ohio State
Highway Patrol Trooper Untied, the citing officer, would not
be available for trial. The motion stated that
appellant's counsel objected to the request for a
continuance. Pursuant to an Entry filed on October 2, 2017,
the trial was continued until October 25, 2017 due to the
Officer's unavailability. The trial court, in its Entry,
found that the request for a continuance was reasonable
pursuant to R.C. 2945.72(H) and that the speedy trial time
Just prior to commencement of trial on October 25, 2017,
counsel for appellant moved for a dismissal pursuant to
Crim.R. 48 on speedy trial grounds, arguing that the State
had not demonstrated good cause for the continuance. The
State, in response, argued, in relevant part, as follows:
MRS. MOORE: Thank you, Your Honor. What is the common
procedure with our Courts, is that when the troopers are on
vacation or unavailable for court dates, they send notice to
both the Courts and the Law Director's office. This was
done by Trooper Untied on August 9, 2017. It was dated,
actually, August 8th, 2017, indicating to the
Courts the day that he was unavailable. This should be filed
with the Court. Based on that request, we did ask for Trooper
Untied - - for a continuance because he is the only witness
in the case and he was unavailable for trial. The Court
granted that continuance, finding in its entry that it was
reasonable pursuant to 2945.72. We believe that this,
therefore, does toll time and we are well within the 30 days
to bring this court case to trial.
THE COURT: Okay. Anything else?
MR. REGENSBERGER [Counsel for Appellant]: Your Honor, I'm
unaware if there's any such letter in the Court's
file. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. I certainly
don't believe that the State has any reason to mislead
the Court about it. It certainly wasn't attached to the
motion, but if it's in the court file, it's in the
MRS. MOORE: I ...