State ex rel. Rarden v. Butler Cty. Common Pleas Court, 2023 Ohio 3742

Background

In 2007 Lonnie Rarden was convicted of multiple offenses and sentenced to an aggregate prison term.
Rarden waived counsel and proceeded pro se at trial; he also appeared pro se at sentencing.
In 2010 the trial court granted Rarden’s motion for resentencing (challenging postrelease-control) and resentenced him; Rarden says he was not re-advised of any right to counsel at that hearing.
In August 2022 Rarden filed a complaint for writs of mandamus and prohibition asking the trial court to vacate his sentence(s) on the ground the court failed to re-advise him of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel at sentencing/resentencing.
The Twelfth District dismissed the complaint under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), holding no authority requires re-advising a defendant who elected to proceed pro se at trial prior to sentencing.
The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed: Rarden had an adequate remedy by direct appeal and he could not show the trial court patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction to sentence or resentence him.

Issues

Issue	Rarden's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether failure to re-advise a defendant who waived counsel at trial of the right to counsel at sentencing renders the sentence void for lack of jurisdiction	A defendant who waived counsel at trial must be re-informed of the right to counsel at each critical stage; failure to re-advise makes the sentence void	A sentencing-court error in advising or re-advising about counsel is a non-jurisdictional constitutional/trial error; relief is by direct appeal, not via mandamus/prohibition	Court held such an omission (even if it violated the Sixth Amendment) does not deprive the court of subject-matter jurisdiction and so does not render the sentence void
Whether mandamus or prohibition relief is available to undo an existing sentence for this claimed right-to-counsel error	Mandamus/prohibition appropriate to vacate sentence because the court lacked authority by violating the Sixth Amendment	Rarden had an adequate remedy by direct appeal; to obtain extraordinary writs he must show the trial court patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction, which he cannot	Court held Rarden had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law and failed to show the trial court patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction; writs denied
Whether res judicata bars Rarden’s claim	The right-to-counsel error can be raised now via writs because sentence is void	If sentence is not void the claim is barred by res judicata because it could have been raised on direct appeal	Court held sentence was not void for lack of jurisdiction, so res judicata bars the claim

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. Ogle v. Hocking Cty. Common Pleas Court, 167 Ohio St.3d 181 (held that, under earlier precedent, a right-to-counsel violation could divest the court of jurisdiction)
State ex rel. Andrews v. Lake Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 170 Ohio St.3d 354 (explains that prohibition to unwind past actions requires a showing the court patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction)
Rance v. Watson, 168 Ohio St.3d 246 (direct appeal is an adequate remedy for sentencing errors)
State v. Ketterer, 126 Ohio St.3d 448 (res judicata bars claims that were or could have been raised on direct appeal)
Bozsik v. Hudson, 110 Ohio St.3d 245 (redress for right-to-counsel violations normally through direct appeal)
Alford v. Collins-McGregor Operating Co., 152 Ohio St.3d 303 (standard of review for Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal)
State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55 (elements required for mandamus relief)
State ex rel. Davis v. Janas, 160 Ohio St.3d 187 (mandamus may issue without showing an adequate remedy when respondent patently lacked jurisdiction)
State ex rel. Elder v. Camplese, 144 Ohio St.3d 89 (elements required for prohibition relief)
Smith v. Sheldon, 157 Ohio St.3d 1 (trial court’s statutory jurisdiction in criminal matters)