In State v. Clay, 9 Ohio App. 3d 216, 216, 9 Ohio B. 366, 459 N.E.2d 609 (1983), the State arrested and charged Mr. Clay with unauthorized use of a vehicle, aggravated robbery, and abduction. Clay, 9 Ohio App. 3d at 216. Two months later, the Grand Jury indicted him for attempted rape and gross sexual imposition. Id. Three months after that, the trial court granted Mr. Clay's motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds. Id. The Eleventh District noted that the "central question" was "when a defendant is arrested and charged with commission of one crime, held in jail pending indictment on additional charges, indictment is completed and service had on the defendant on those additional charges, does the computation of time for speedy trial consideration run from the original arrest date or the date of the return of the indictment containing the additional charges?" Id. Accordingly, when the Eleventh District wrote that "the time within which trial is to begin on the additional charge is subject to the same statutory limitations period that is applied to the original charge," it was referring to when the clock started and stopped for speedy trial purposes, not the duration of the time period. Id.