DocketNumber: No. 22521.
Citation Numbers: 2009 Ohio 1957
Judges: FAIN, J.
Filed Date: 4/17/2009
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/6/2016
{¶ 2} We conclude that, because there is no evidence in the record that Jones's *Page 2 constitutional or statutory rights had been violated, the trial court abused its discretion when it dismissed this action with prejudice. Accordingly, the order of the trial court dismissing this cause with prejudice is modified to be an order dismissing this cause without prejudice, and, as modified, is Affirmed.
{¶ 4} Jones was charged with Operating a Motor Vehicle Under the Influence of Marijuana, in violation of R.C.
{¶ 5} A hearing on the motion to suppress was set for October 11, 2007. On that date, the hearing was continued to October 18, at the request of the State. During the hearing on October 18, the prosecutor indicated that the State did not have sufficient evidence to prosecuteat that time, and asked the trial court to dismiss the action, without prejudice. The trial court stated that it would dismiss the action with prejudice, because the State had not been ready to proceed earlier, on October 11, and was still not ready to prosecute the action. The State did not object. The trial court *Page 3 subsequently entered the following order:
{¶ 6} "This was an OVI case against Calvin Jones, Jr., that was dismissed with prejudice. The prosecutor held two pretrial conferences and then the matter was scheduled for a Motion to Suppress. The State of Ohio moved for a continuance of the Motion to Suppress on October 11, 2007. At that time the parties were advised there would be no other continuances. The matter was rescheduled for a hearing on October 18, 2007.
{¶ 7} "The hearing was never held. On October 18, 2007, the State of Ohio moved for a dismissal without prejudice. The prosecutor explained that the State did not have any evidence to show the THC in the Defendant's urine specimen caused any type of impairment at the time of the accident. Additionally, there did not appear to be any evidence showing when the substance was consumed. Moreover, the State acknowledged a consultation on these issues had taken place with the Miami Valley Crime Lab's forensic toxicologist. In other words, the State of Ohio did not have an expert witness and there was no indication they thought they could obtain such an expert to prevail at the Motion to Suppress or prove their case at trial."
{¶ 8} From the dismissal of this action with prejudice, the State appeals.
{¶ 10} "THE TRIAL COURT DID ERROR [SIC] IN DISMISSING THIS CASE WITH PREJUDICE."
{¶ 11} The State contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it *Page 4 dismissed this action with prejudice.
{¶ 12} The State may dismiss a case and re-indict following further investigation. State v. Tucker (Dec. 21, 1989), Cuyahoga App. No. 56375 and 56376. Pursuant to Crim. R. 48(A), "[t]he state may by leave of court and in open court file an entry of dismissal of an indictment, information, or complaint and the prosecution shall thereupon terminate." Similarly, R.C.
{¶ 13} A trial court has discretion over the issue of dismissal.State v. Rodriguez, Darke App. No. 1722,
{¶ 14} The record in this case fails to establish, and neither Jones nor the trial court cite, any violation of Jones's constitutional or statutory rights. There is no indication that Jones's right to a speedy trial was violated nor that jeopardy had *Page 5 attached. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion when it dismissed this action with prejudice.
{¶ 15} The State's sole assignment of error is sustained.
BROGAN and GRADY, JJ., concur. *Page 1
State v. Rodriguez, 1722 (7-3-2008) , 2008 Ohio 3377 ( 2008 )