Narrative Opinion Summary
This case involves an appeal by Toriano Ross, Sr. against a decision by the Butler County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, which denied his motion to dismiss a contempt case regarding unpaid child support. Originating from a 1990 parentage and support agreement, Ross was found in contempt in 2007 for non-payment, receiving a suspended ten-day jail sentence. Subsequent missed payments resulted in a bench warrant. While incarcerated on unrelated charges, Ross filed motions for a speedy trial and dismissal, citing R.C. 2941.401, which mandates a 180-day period for trial or disposition after a detainer is filed. The court rejected this argument, noting that the statute applies only to untried criminal charges and not to civil contempt actions. It clarified that the 180-day period starts upon the defendant's request for disposition, not at the detainer's issuance. Consequently, the court held that Ross's reliance on R.C. 2941.401 was misplaced, as it does not apply to civil proceedings, thereby affirming the denial of his motion to dismiss.
Legal Issues Addressed
Application of R.C. 2941.401 to Civil Contempt Proceedingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the statute R.C. 2941.401, which pertains to untried criminal charges, is not applicable to civil contempt proceedings related to child support.
Reasoning: The court emphasized that R.C. 2941.401, which applies to untried criminal charges against incarcerated defendants, does not apply to civil contempt proceedings like child support cases.
Commencement of 180-Day Timeframe under R.C. 2941.401subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court clarified that the 180-day period specified in R.C. 2941.401 begins when a defendant files a request for disposition, not when a detainer is issued.
Reasoning: The court clarified that the 180-day timeframe begins when a defendant files a request for disposition, not when a detainer is issued.
Jurisdiction in Civil Contempt Casessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that the jurisdiction was not deprived by the alleged violation of R.C. 2941.401, as the statute does not apply to civil cases.
Reasoning: However, the court clarified that the 180-day timeframe begins when a defendant files a request for disposition, not when a detainer is issued.