Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

69 Ohio App. 2d 128

432 N.E.2d 219

State v. Willis

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided October 16, 1980

Ohio Court of Appeals · decided 1980-10-16

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently March 2005

7 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1980-10-16

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1I concur in the judgment of affirmance on the basis of the speedy trial issue. It is my view that when a criminal case is dismissed and an appeal taken by the state, and then there is a remand by the Court of Appeals, where there has not been a trial, guilty plea, or a no contest plea, the case must be tried, after the reversal and remand by the Court of Appeals, within the relevant time prescribed by R. C. 2945.71.

¶2In addition, I must note that the defendant was arrested on February 3, 1977, and a motion to suppress physical evidence was granted by the trial court on February 23, 1977. An appeal was not taken from the granting of the motion to suppress, but a nolle prosequi was entered to the February 3rd charge and then the same charge was reinstituted.

¶3It is difficult to comprehend why this defendant was recharged in the same case when the motion to suppress was granted and no appeal was taken. On any new charge for the same offense, the evidence that was suppressed could not be admitted.

¶4*1

/69/ohioapp2d/128 · .json · Public domain