Appeals Court Rules Bond Reduction Motion Does Not Toll Speedy Trial Requirement
A Greene County defendant’s motion for bond reduction did not toll (put on hold) the number of days counted toward complying with his right to a speedy trial, according to the Second District Court of Appeals. Consequently, the appeals court ordered Shawn B. Hardy, who was sentenced for felony non-support, released from custody.
Hardy pleaded not guilty on August 5, 2011 and a jury trial was set for October 10, 2011. He filed a motion for bond review on August 15, 2011, which the trial court overruled on August 30, 2011. On October 4, 2011, the trial court rescheduled the trial for December 14, 2011. Hardy did not waive his speedy trial right. He filed a motion to dismiss for speedy trial violation on November 4, 2011.
In a unanimous decision authored by Judge Mary E. Donovan, she wrote that “the record reflects that the motion for bond reduction did not serve to delay the trial proceedings in any way” unlike a motion to suppress or motion to dismiss.
Judge Donovan also cited four other appellate court cases finding that a motion for bond reduction constitutes a tolling event, while the Ohio Supreme Court “has not spoken directly on the issue.”
“We note that the State did not assert that the motion for bond reduction constituted a tolling event in the proceedings below,” she continued. “The fact that the State did not advance that argument before the trial court supports a finding that the State simply did not view the motion as a proper tolling event on this record. Moreover, three days after the bond reduction motion was filed, in a pre-trial conference on August 18, 2011, the State agreed in writing that Hardy’s last date for speedy trial was October 24, 2011.”
Judges Jeffrey E. Froelich and Thomas J. Grady concurred in the August 3 opinion that reversed the judgment of the trial court, vacated Hardy’s convictions and ordered him discharged.
State v. Hardy, 2012-Ohio-3498
Criminal Appeal From: Greene County Common Pleas Court
Judgment Appealed From Is: Reversed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: August 3, 2012
Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.
PDF files may be viewed, printed, and searched using the free Acrobat® Reader
Acrobat Reader is a trademark of Adobe Systems Incorporated.