# State v. Counts

> Ohio Court of Appeals · January 7, 2007 · 170 Ohio App. 3d 339

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3700695

## Case

- **Full name:** The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. COUNTS, Appellant
- **Court:** Ohio Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** January 7, 2007
- **Citations:** 170 Ohio App. 3d 339; 2007 Ohio 117; 867 N.E.2d 432
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Hoffman
- **Judges:** Boggins, Edwards, Hoffman
- **Cited by:** 3 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3700695

## Opinion text

*349
Hoffman, Presiding Judge,
concurring.
{¶ 92} I concur in the majority’s analysis and disposition of appellant’s second and third assignments of error.
{¶ 93} As to appellant’s first assignment of error, I would not universally extend the Ohio Supreme Court’s rationale in
Bauer
to cases involving a defendant’s failure to appear at a pretrial. Failing to appear at a pretrial status conference is significantly different than failing to appear at a scheduled trial. In the case sub judice, appellant’s failure to appear at the pretrial did not necessitate rescheduling a trial date. Unlike the situation in
Bauer,
no trial date had been set as of the date appellant failed to appear at pretrial.
{¶ 94} Nevertheless, I concur in overruling this assignment of error based on the invited-error doctrine. As noted by the majority, at the hearing on appellant’s motion to dismiss, appellant’s attorney conceded that the speedy-trial time clock started anew upon appellant’s rearrest on August 28, 2005. Accordingly, appellant cannot now assert error in failing to count earlier than August 28, 2005.
1
1
. Appellant does not separately assign an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. My opinion should not be read to imply that I would find such a claim meritorious had it been raised under the facts of this case, because I find the
Pearl
case relied upon by appellant to be factually distinguishable.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3700695. Public record. Not legal advice.