State ex rel. Boyd v. Tone, 2023 Ohio 3832

In 2006 Boyd pleaded guilty in Erie County to aggravated murder (with firearm specification), felonious assault, and aggravated burglary and was sentenced to life with parole eligibility after 41 years. The court informed him of his right to appeal.
Boyd originally retained attorney Denise Demmitt; she moved to withdraw after identifying a conflict because Boyd’s stepfather (also her client) was a material witness who received a reduced sentence for cooperating. The court granted the motion and appointed two new attorneys; Boyd did not object to the appointment.
In 2023 Boyd filed two complaints in the Sixth District: a writ of mandamus and a writ of prohibition seeking vacatur of his convictions and sentence, arguing the court wrongfully removed his counsel of choice and thus lacked jurisdiction to accept his pleas.
The Sixth District dismissed both actions sua sponte, reasoning Boyd could have raised the withdrawal issue on direct appeal and therefore had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law (res judicata barred the postconviction writs).
The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed: direct appeal was an adequate remedy to challenge the claimed denial of counsel of choice, and a violation of that right does not patently and unambiguously deprive the sentencing court of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The Court also rejected Boyd’s request to order the trial court to review the motion to withdraw because the record showed the trial court had ruled on it.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether removal of counsel of choice rendered convictions/sentence void for lack of jurisdiction	Boyd: removal of Demmitt violated Sixth Amendment/right to counsel of choice and is structural error, so convictions are void	State: any counsel-withdrawal claim could be raised on direct appeal; even if error, it does not deprive court of jurisdiction	Held: Denied — violation is reversible on appeal but does not patently and unambiguously deprive the court of subject-matter jurisdiction
Whether direct appeal was an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law	Boyd: at time of conviction (2006) he could not immediately appeal the withdrawal	State: direct appeal could challenge the withdrawal and is an adequate remedy	Held: Denied — direct appeal was an adequate remedy; res judicata bars postconviction extraordinary writs
Whether the trial court failed to rule on the motion to withdraw (writ to compel review)	Boyd: trial court never ruled on Demmitt’s motion to withdraw; requests mandamus directing proper review	State: record shows the trial court did rule	Held: Denied — mandamus will not compel an act already performed; court ruled on the motion

United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006) (denial of retained counsel of choice is structural error not subject to harmless-error review)
State v. Chambliss, 128 Ohio St.3d 507 (2011) (pretrial denial of retained counsel of choice is immediately appealable)
State ex rel. Rackley v. Sloan, 150 Ohio St.3d 11 (2016) (direct appeal is an adequate remedy, defeating postconviction extraordinary writs)
Casey v. Hudson, 113 Ohio St.3d 166 (2007) (direct appeal suffices as adequate remedy in habeas/postconviction context)
State ex rel. Davis v. Janas, 160 Ohio St.3d 187 (2020) (no need to show lack of adequate remedy when trial court patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction)
State ex rel. Ogle v. Hocking Cty. Common Pleas Court, 167 Ohio St.3d 181 (2021) (held sentencing could be void if judge barred counsel; later overruled)