43
Appeals court reverses robbery case dismissal
A hearing is set for 9:30 a.m. Tuesday in the trial court.
YOUNGSTOWN — The 7th District Court of Appeals has reversed a trial judge’s ruling that an armed- robbery suspect had to be freed and the case against him dismissed because the speedy-trial clock had expired.
In a unanimous ruling Monday, the three-judge appeals court panel ordered the trial judge — Judge Maureen A. Sweeney of Mahoning County Common Pleas Court — to conduct “a hearing to determine the reasonableness of the defense’s delay in responding to the state’s discovery request’’ regarding evidence, and to determine how much time remains on the speedy-trial clock. That hearing is set for 9:30 a.m. Tuesday.
On Sept. 10, 2007, Judge Sweeney granted a defense motion for dismissal of an aggravated robbery charge with a firearm specification against Christopher Williams, 20, of Detroit Avenue, and ordered him released from county jail.
Williams, whose trial was to have begun that day, had been charged with robbing an 80-year-old West Side man of his keys and cellular phone Dec. 28, 2006, as the victim was leaving a Zedaker Street residence.
Williams had been jailed since the day of the robbery, and his lawyer, Lynn Maro, requested the dismissal because Williams hadn’t been brought to trial within the required 90 days of his arrest.
But Robert J. Andrews, assistant county prosecutor, argued that 12 days remained on the 90-day speedy-trial clock because the clock had been stopped numerous times by defense motions and by Judge Sweeney’s being engaged in other trials.
As soon as the judge dismissed the case and ordered Williams freed, the prosecutor’s office appealed the dismissal.
Now that the appellate court has ruled, Michael J. McBride, assistant county prosecutor, has asked Judge Sweeney to issue a warrant for Williams to be rearrested pending trial and to reinstate his previous $50,000 bond.
The hearing ordered by the appeals court will focus on a delay between the prosecution’s Feb. 22, 2007, request for disclosure of the defense’s evidence and Aug. 28, when the defense provided it, said Ralph Rivera, assistant county prosecutor. The prosecution had disclosed its evidence to the defense Feb. 22, he said.
An Ohio Supreme Court ruling in another case last year said 30 days is a reasonable time to respond to a request for such disclosure, which is known as discovery.
If Judge Sweeney adheres to the 30-day standard, Rivera said 54 days should remain on Williams’ speedy-trial clock.
Another question to be addressed is whether the prosecution fully provided the required discovery to the defense Feb. 22, 2007, and the prosecution’s position is that it did, Rivera said.
A spokeswoman for Judge Sweeney said the judge awaits a response from Maro concerning McBride’s request and that the judge has issued no new order on the matter yet. She also said the judge would not comment outside of court because the case has now been returned to her court.