2016 Ohio 108
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Appellant Alexander Lasker-Hall (age 18) pled no-contest to one count of attempted theft (first-degree misdemeanor) for taking baseball equipment and clothing from a car in a high-school parking lot.
- Trial court advised Lasker-Hall of constitutional rights waived by the plea and accepted the no-contest plea after a colloquy about rights but did not conduct an oral waiver-of-counsel colloquy on the record.
- Court sentenced Lasker-Hall to 180 days in jail (with 3 days credit), $250 costs, and restitution of $1,145.
- Appellant appealed, arguing (1) the jail sentence is invalid because there was no recorded, knowing, intelligent waiver of counsel as required in petty-offense cases, and (2) the restitution amount was miscalculated and must be corrected.
- The State conceded the restitution calculation was incorrect and agreed nunc pro tunc correction was appropriate; the defense claimed the jail term could not be imposed absent a valid trial-court oral waiver of counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court could impose confinement in a petty-offense case without an on-the-record, knowing, intelligent waiver of counsel | The City argued conviction and sentence are proper because defendant signed a written waiver and was advised of rights during plea colloquy | Lasker-Hall argued the court never secured an oral, on-the-record waiver of counsel as required by Crim.R. 44(B), so confinement cannot be imposed | Court held no valid on-the-record waiver of counsel was made; vacated the jail portion of the sentence but left conviction intact |
| Whether restitution amount was miscalculated and must be corrected | City conceded calculation error and agreed to correct restitution to $570 via nunc pro tunc entry | Lasker-Hall argued the journal entry misstates total value and restitution must be corrected; also noted items may have been recovered so restitution could be improper | Court found clerical error in restitution calculation, remanded for nunc pro tunc correction to $570 and noted restitution cannot exceed actual economic loss if property was recovered |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gibson, 45 Ohio St.2d 366, 345 N.E.2d 399 (Ohio 1976) (describes standards for a valid waiver of counsel and the required knowing, intelligent, voluntary nature of waivers)
- Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U.S. 708 (U.S. 1948) (federal standard for knowing and intelligent waiver of counsel quoted by Ohio courts)
- Garfield Heights v. Brewer, 17 Ohio App.3d 216, 479 N.E.2d 309 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984) (written waiver is not a substitute for an on-the-record oral waiver under the Criminal Rules)
- State v. Haag, 49 Ohio St.2d 268, 360 N.E.2d 756 (Ohio 1977) (discusses effect of waiver defects in petty-offense cases and sentencing limits)