With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". previous cases provide some guidance. Generally, the entry of nolle prosequi on a misdemeanor charge tolls the running of statutory speedy trial time until the service of summons on a second misdemeanor charge arising out of the same conduct. Westlake v. Cougill (1978), 56 Ohio St.2d 230, 10 O.O.3d 382, 383 N.E.2d 599. Similarly, the time period between nolle prosequi of a felony charge and reindictment is excluded in computing speedy trial time. State v. Spratz (1979), 58 Ohio St.2d 61, 62, 12 O.O.3d 77, 388 N.E.2d 751, 752, fn. 2. However, in both instances “credit was given the accused for the period of time the charges based on the same conduct were pending prior to entry of the nolle prosequi.” State v. Bonarrigo (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 7, 10, 16 O.O.3d 4, 6, 402 N.E.2d 530, 534 (<HOLDING>). Those cases suggest that to determine

A: holding that where a prosecutor obtains a felony indictment based upon the same conduct as was a previously nolled lesserincluded misdemeanor charge the time within which the accused shall be brought to trial pursuant to rc 294571 et seq consists of whatever residue remains from the 270 day period set forth in rc 294571c after deducting the speedy trial time expended prior to the nolle prosequi id at 11 16 oo3d at 7 402 ne2d at 534
B: holding the state must prove that at the time of the homicide the defendant was engaged in the commission of the felony
C: holding that where the law is unsettled at the time of trial but settled by the time of appeal the plainness of the error should be judged by the law at the time of appeal
D: holding that in computing time to determine whether an act was performed within a specified period of time under the statute of limitations the first day is excluded and the last day of the period is included
A.