Per Curiam.
The state argues, in effect, that representations made to the trial court by defense counsel that he was unable to proceed with the case until a later time "serve[d] to extend the time for trial pursuant to * * * Section 2945.72" where the trial was, in fact, scheduled for a later date.
Between December 28, 1976, when the trial court overruled defendant's motion to suppress, and April 15, 1977, the date defendant...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
