YOUNGSTOWN — Lou DeFabio, attorney for Rean L. Easterling, 31, has asked Judge Anthony D’Apolito of Mahoning County Common Pleas Court to dismiss several drug charges against Easterling as a result of what DeFabio calls a speedy-trial-rights violation.

Speedy trial in Ohio requires the prosecution to bring a defendant charged with a felony offense to trial within 270 days of his or her arrest, according to the Ohio Revised Code.

Easterling’s charges are aggravated drug possession, fentanyl-related compound possession and cocaine possession, all with a specification of forfeiture of money in a drug case.

He also has a separate aggravated drug possession charge. If convicted, Easterling could get more than 20 years in prison.

DeFabio’s Feb. 22 filing and a March 7 prosecution filing both give a lengthy rundown of the various events in the two cases and even a third case in Trumbull County, in which they add up the days they believe count toward speedy-trial time.

Both filings indicate that Easterling was arrested the first time April 30, 2022, in the case with the three charges. Both filings say he was indicted June 9, 2022, but failed to appear for his arraignment and was arrested again Feb. 10, 2023, on warrants. He was then held in jail without bond.

In the second Mahoning County case, Easterling was arrested by the Ohio State Highway Patrol Jan. 10, 2022, on a traffic violation, and a trooper seized suspected drugs, but Easterling was not charged with that offense right away because the seized items were sent to a lab for testing, DeFabio’s filing states. Easterling was charged with a drug violation June 3, 2022, in that case.

Easterling also was charged with aggravated drug possession in a 2021 Trumbull County case and failed to appear April 26, 2022, in that case, DeFabio’s filing states.

DeFabio noted that under Ohio law, a defendant is entitled to have every day he spends in jail awaiting trial in lieu of bond count for three days for speedy-trial calculations, though the so-called “triple-count provision” only applies if the defendant is being held “solely on the pending charge.”

DeFabio acknowledged that Easterling did not qualify for the “triple-count provision” in most instances because Easterling was being held on multiple charges.

However, DeFabio argues that Easterlng’s speedy-trial clock began May 1, 2022, meaning he has at least 270 days in custody in the first case and at least 270 days in custody in the second case starting Feb. 14, 2023.

DeFabio called that a “prima facie case for dismissal,” meaning a “first impression” conclusion. Once there is a “prima facie case for dismissal,” the burden falls to the state to “demonstrate that sufficient time” did not count toward speedy trial so that a speedy-trial violation did not occur, DeFabio stated, quoting from case law.

“If the state has violated a defendant’s right to speedy trial, then the court must dismiss the charges against the defendant,” DeFabio stated, quoting from Ohio law.

PROSECUTOR FILING

Katherine Jones, county assistant prosecutor, filed a response to DeFabio’s motion March 7. She recounted that Easterling was indicted June 9, 2022, in the first case, and his arraignment was set for June 28. Because Easterling was free on bond, each day was counted as a single day for a total of 40 days.

A warrant was issued for Easterling’s arrest June 28, 2022, because he failed to appear for his arraignment, thus suspending the speedy trial clock. In the meantime, a new felony warrant for Easterling was filed in the second case. On Feb. 17, 2023, Easterling was arraigned in common pleas court on the first case and was held without bond.

Jones’ filing states that only 87 days of the 270-day speedy trial clock have expired in the first case. Even if Judge D’Apolito credited Easterling with triple-count credit for the time Easterling has spent in jail awaiting trial, Easterling would still be under the 270-day allotment of speedy trial time, Jones argued.

She also gave a recitation of the dates involved in the second arrest, saying that only 46 of the 270 days in that case have elapsed.

She noted that certain events stop the speedy-trial clock from running, including “any period of delay occasioned by the neglect or improper act of the accused.”

Other events that do not count toward speedy-trial time are any period of delay caused by a continuance requested by the defense, she stated. When the prosecution asked for a trial delay in October of 2023 because of the unavailability of a lab

analyst to retest suspected drugs, that

did not add speedy-trial days, Jones argued.

Nor did the defense request to have the suspected drugs tested by an independent lab, she stated. The trial was reset for Feb. 20. No additional days of speedy-trial time should have accrued between the October and February trial dates, Jones argued.

Judge D’Apolito has scheduled oral arguments on the motion for 11 a.m. March 20.

Have an interesting story? Email Ed Runyan at erunyan@vindy.com.