City of Tallmadge v. DeGraft-Biney

Because the majority has ignored the express, unambiguous provisions of Crim. R. 23(A) and 45(B) by allowing the time for filing a demand for jury trial in petty offense cases to be extended by a continuance of the trial, I must respectfully dissent. I conclude that this court’s decision in State v. Stauffer (1976), 48 Ohio St. 2d 54, 2 O.O. 3d 169, 356 N.E. 2d 724, is based on sound reasoning, and is controlling.

Although it is unclear from the opinion, this court was faced with the same issue in Stauffer, supra. In Stauffer, the defendant was charged with driving while intoxicated. On…