State v. Nethers, Unpublished Decision (6-5-2003)
State v. Nethers, Unpublished Decision (6-5-2003)
Opinion of the Court
OPINION
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Vance H. Nethers appeals the September 26, 2002 Judgment Entry entered by the Licking County Municipal Court, which denied appellant's motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds, after appellant entered a plea of no contest. Plaintiff-appellee is the State of Ohio.{¶ 3} Appellant filed a written Jury Demand on March 15, 2002. The trial court then set the matter for trial on March 21, 2002. On March 18, 2002, appellant filed a Motion to Continue the jury trial due to trial counsel's unavailability. Via Judgment Entry filed March 19, 2002, the trial court continued the matter until May 9, 2002.
{¶ 4} On May 7, 2002, appellant requested a second continuance of the jury trial, advising the trial court he had voluntarily checked himself into a residential treatment center and would be unavailable until June 10, 2002. The trial court denied appellant's motion via Judgment Entry filed May 8, 2002. On May 9, 2002, appellant failed to appear for the jury trial, which resulted in the trial court's issuing a warrant for his arrest. Appellant was arrested on August 13, 2002. Appellant was brought before the trial court and was released on his own recognizance. The trial court scheduled the matter for trial on September 26, 2002. On September 25, 2002, appellant filed a Motion to Dismiss, asserting his constitutional and statutory rights to a speedy trial were violated. The trial court denied appellant's motion. Prior to the commencement of the jury trial, appellant withdrew his former pleas of not guilty and entered pleas of no contest to the charges against him. The trial court found appellant guilty as charged and scheduled a sentencing hearing on October 24, 2002.
{¶ 5} It is from the trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss appellant appeals, raising as his sole assignment of error:
{¶ 6} "I. The trial court erred and/or abused its discretion in denying appellant's motion to dismiss (i.e. due process, equal protection, and/or speedy trial)."
{¶ 8} In State v. Bauer (1980),
{¶ 9} We affirm the trial court's denial of appellant's motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds pursuant to State v. Bauer.
{¶ 10} Appellant's sole assignment of error is overruled.
By: Hoffman, J. Edwards, J. and Boggins, J. concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.