Background
Joshua Schaffer was charged with criminal trespass for his conduct on the campus of Summa Hospital. After a public defender was appointed, Schaffer continued filing numerous pro se motions, including multiple motions to dismiss asserting First Amendment violations. The trial court denied these motions and, on its docket, charged the time to the defendant. Meanwhile, defense counsel filed a motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds, arguing that the 45-day statutory period under R.C. 2945.71(B)(1) had elapsed because the pro se motions should not toll the speedy trial clock.
The trial court denied the speedy trial motion and the case proceeded to a jury trial where Schaffer was convicted. Schaffer appealed, raising the speedy trial issue as his lead assignment of error.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth District sustained Schaffer’s first assignment of error in part, relying on the court’s prior decision in State v. Hill. Under Hill, when a represented defendant files pro se motions, those motions generally do not toll the speedy trial clock because a hybrid representation arrangement (where the defendant acts as both co-counsel and represented party) is not recognized in Ohio absent a proper waiver of counsel. The court found that the trial court erred by charging the time from Schaffer’s pro se motions to the defense and that a proper speedy trial calculation was needed on remand.
The court overruled Schaffer’s sufficiency-of-evidence challenge to his criminal trespass conviction, finding that even though Schaffer initially had permission to be on the hospital campus, that privilege was revoked when he became uncooperative with security and was asked to leave. The court declined to address the manifest-weight argument as moot given the remand.
Key Takeaways
- In Ohio, pro se motions filed by a represented defendant generally do not toll the statutory speedy trial clock because Ohio does not recognize hybrid representation absent a proper waiver of counsel.
- A trial court’s docket notation charging time to the defendant is not dispositive; the appellate court independently calculates whether the speedy trial deadline was met.
- Criminal trespass on hospital property can be established where a person initially has permission to enter but that privilege is revoked by security personnel.
Why It Matters
This decision has significant implications for speedy trial calculations in Ohio criminal cases. When a represented defendant files pro se motions—as happens frequently with self-represented-inclined defendants—prosecutors should not assume that the time consumed by those motions automatically tolls the speedy trial clock. Trial courts must carefully distinguish between motions filed by appointed counsel (which toll the clock) and unauthorized pro se filings. Defense attorneys should monitor the speedy trial calculation and be prepared to move for dismissal if the State relies on pro se motions to excuse delay. The decision also provides a practical framework for how revocation of permission works in criminal trespass cases on institutional campuses.