State v. Williams

Citations

• 2020 Ohio 378

Syllabus

App.R. 26(B) application for reopening, ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, interstate agreement on detainers, R.C. 2963.30, Art. III(a), substantial compliance, written notice of disposition of pending charges, notice of availability, speedy trial, R.C. 2945.71, R.C. 2945.72, triple-count, res judicata. The appellant's App.R. 26(B) application for reopening is denied because he has failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the conduct of his appellate counsel. The applicant's claim of lack of speedy trial, based upon R.C. 2963.30 (interstate agreement on detainers) and R.C. 2945.71 (speedy trial when charged with felony), is not well taken. The appellant failed to substantially comply with R.C. 2963.30, Art. III(a), because no evidence is contained within the trial court record to demonstrate that the prosecutor received notice of the notification of disposition of pending charges/notice of availability. Both the trial court and the prosecutor must be provided notice to trigger speedy trial under R.C. 2963.30. In addition, the appellant was brought to trial within 270 days of indictment. Finally, the appellant's claim of prejudice, based upon the trial court granting the state a continuance in the midst of the victim's testimony, was previously raised and addressed on direct appeal. Res judicata bars further review of the claimed error.