State v. Harris , 2017 Ohio 1150 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as State v. Harris, 2017-Ohio-1150.]
    STATE OF OHIO                     )                  IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
    )ss:               NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
    COUNTY OF SUMMIT                  )
    STATE OF OHIO                                        C.A. Nos.      28229
    28230
    Appellee                                                    28231
    v.
    ANTHONY HARRIS                                       APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
    ENTERED IN THE
    Appellant                                    COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
    COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO
    CASE Nos. CR 2015 07 2055
    CR 2015 07 2238
    CR 2015 09 2924
    DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
    Dated: March 29, 2017
    CARR, Judge.
    {¶1}     Appellant, Anthony Harris, appeals the judgment of the Summit County Court of
    Common Pleas. This Court affirms.
    I.
    {¶2}     In 2015, the Summit County Grand Jury handed down three separate indictments
    charging Harris with a bevy of criminal offenses. Harris initially pleaded not guilty to all of the
    charges. Prior to the commencement of trial, Harris moved to have all of the charges against him
    dismissed on speedy trial grounds pursuant to R.C. 2945.71, et seq. The trial court denied the
    motion to dismiss on the basis that the State complied with the statutory timeframe and the
    frequent continuances in the matter were attributable to the defendant.         Harris eventually
    withdrew his pleas of not guilty and pleaded guilty to a total of nine counts of forgery. The
    2
    remaining charges against Harris were dismissed. The trial court imposed a six-month prison
    term for each offense and ordered that all of the sentences in the three cases be served
    consecutively to each other. The sentencing entries for all three cases were journalized on April
    8, 2016.
    {¶3}    On appeal, Harris raises one assignment of error.
    II.
    ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
    THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT
    FAILED TO DISMISS THE CHARGES AGAINST MR. HARRIS ON SPEEDY
    TRIAL GROUNDS[.]
    {¶4}    In his sole assignment of error, Harris contends that the trial court erred by not
    dismissing the charges against him on statutory speedy trial grounds. This Court disagrees.
    {¶5}    R.C. 2945.71 sets forth the statutory speedy trial right in Ohio. The Supreme
    Court of Ohio has long held that “[a] plea of guilty waives a defendant’s right to challenge his or
    her conviction on statutory speedy trial grounds[.]” State v. Kelley, 
    57 Ohio St. 3d 127
    (1991), at
    paragraph one of the syllabus. Even where a criminal defendant filed a motion to dismiss on
    statutory speedy trial grounds in the trial court, the defendant waives the right to raise that issue
    on appeal by entering a plea of guilty to the charges against him. State v. Dyson, 9th Dist.
    Wayne No. 09CA0055, 2010-Ohio-6452, ¶ 8-9. In this case, Harris pleaded guilty to numerous
    criminal charges after the trial court denied his motion to dismiss. Harris’ sole argument on
    appeal is that the trial court should have dismissed the charges against him pursuant to R.C.
    2945.71, et seq. As Harris waived this argument by pleading guilty, he cannot prevail on his
    assignment of error. See Dyson at ¶ 8-9.
    {¶6}    Harris’ assignment of error is overruled.
    3
    III.
    {¶7}    Harris’ assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Summit County
    Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
    Judgment affirmed.
    There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
    We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common
    Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy
    of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
    Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of
    judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the
    period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is
    instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the
    mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
    Costs taxed to Appellant.
    DONNA J. CARR
    FOR THE COURT
    HENSAL, P. J.
    CALLAHAN, J.
    CONCUR.
    APPEARANCES:
    GREGORY A. PRICE, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
    SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and HEAVEN DIMARTINO, Assistant
    Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 28229, 28230, 28231

Citation Numbers: 2017 Ohio 1150

Judges: Carr

Filed Date: 3/29/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 3/29/2017