Whether the lower court erred in its interpretation and application of the relevant statutory and constitutional provisions

issue presented in this case is,whether an inmate's . ‘| awareness of a pending indictment and of his right to , request trial on the pending charges satisfies the notification requirements of R.C.2941.401. The Ohio Supreme Court in State v.Dillon,ii4 Onio St.i54, 2007-Ohio-3617,held that it does not. R.C.2941.401 requires a Warden or prison Superintendent to notify a prisoner “in writing of the source and contents of any untried indictment and of his right "to make a request for final disposition thereof." ; : : The Warden's failure to provide notification of the pending indictment makes Dillon and Hairston inapplicable to this : case. Assistant Prosecutor Steven McIntosh misstated the law in this case,when he stated R.C.2941.401 does not have control in this case. (Tr.200,at 4 15-24-200). Assistant Prosecuter Denise J.Salerno stated in Appellee's Brief that there is no indication that petitioner was even : aware of the charges before his indictment and detention. . ff 2). ; By enacting R.C.2941.401,the General Assembly has obligated _ | the State to notify “in writing an accused person who is incarcerated of both the accused's right to demand Speedy disposition of pending indictments and of the source and contents of the indictment. " ; An inmate's awareness of a pending indictment and of his : right to request trial on the pending charges does not wai . satisfy the notification requirements of R.C.2941.401. The . Court further stated,Oral notification does not satisfy the : statutory mandate that a defendant receive written notice. (Tr.731,735,at § 10-17,770,at 1 4-25). citing also State v. |Brown,131 Ohio App.3d 387 (Ohio Ct.App.1998);State V.Miller If3 Ohio App.3d 606 {Ohio Ct App..1996), ; —— |