Parma v. Battaia, 2012 Ohio 173

Appellant Geno Battaia was convicted of two counts of disorderly conduct and one count of criminal damaging in Parma Municipal Court.
The charges arose from Battaia’s conduct outside the Blue Moose Saloon and during subsequent interactions with police and paramedics while intoxicated.
Battaia was initially assigned counsel after declaring indigence; he later filed a grievance against his attorney before trial.
On the day of trial, the court instructed Battaia to sign a waiver of counsel and proceed pro se, without a meaningful colloquy about rights or consequences.
Battaia requested a continuance to prepare, but the court denied it and proceeded to bench trial with him representing himself.
The trial court sentenced Battaia to jail terms, fines, and community control immediately after verdict, and he appealed claiming ineffective assistance of counsel and improper waiver.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Battaia’s waiver of counsel knowing, intelligent, and voluntary?	Battaia argues waiver was not knowingly and intelligently made.	Court contends waiver was voluntary and valid based on colloquy.	Waiver invalid; failure to satisfy standard requires reversal

Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U.S. 708 (U.S. Supreme Court 1948) (waiver must be knowing and intelligent; fully explain charges and rights)
State v. Gibson, 45 Ohio St.2d 366 (Ohio 1976) (require sufficient inquiry to determine intelligent relinquishment of right to counsel)
State v. Birinyi, 2011-Ohio-6257 (8th Dist. Nos. 95680 and 95681, 2011) (reaffirms Von Moltke standard for waiver of counsel)