Legal Opinion

State v. Mourey

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided September 2, 1992No. Nos. 91-1378 and 91-2024PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSweeney, J.

The issue certified by the court of appeals to this court is as follows: “When does the one-hundred-eighty-day period set forth in R.C. 2963.30, within which a criminal defendant incarcerated in another jurisdiction must be brought to trial, begin to run?”

For the reasons that follow, we hold that the one-hundred-eighty-day time period set forth in R.C. 2963.30, Ohio’s codification of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, begins to run when a prisoner substantially complies with the requirements of the statute set forth in Article 111(a) and (b) thereof. Since we find that defendant…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Pittman v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 1973
  2. McBride v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1978
  3. State v. FergusonOhio Court of Appeals · 1987
  4. Commonwealth v. MartensMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1986
  5. State v. SeadinMontana Supreme Court · 1979

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. David Andrew Birdwell v. Jack Skeen, Jr., Criminal District Attorney of Smith County, TexasCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1993
  2. State v. WellsOhio Court of Appeals · 1994
  3. Johnson v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1997
  4. State v. QuinonesOhio Court of Appeals · 2006
  5. State v. WilliamsOhio Supreme Court · 2023

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API