State v. Ames
2019 Ohio 2632
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Bruce M. Ames was cited for OVI (R.C. 4511.19) and a tinted-glass violation; he submitted a urine test that produced an additional OVI charge after arraignment.
- Ames initially demanded a jury trial but executed a written jury-waiver the day before trial; he later orally sought to withdraw the waiver immediately before the bench trial.
- The bench trial proceeded on November 29, 2018; Ames was found guilty of all charges.
- At sentencing the court merged the OVI counts, imposed jail time (partially suspended), probation, license suspension, fines, and costs.
- On appeal Ames raised three assignments of error: (1) his jury-waiver was not knowing/voluntary and he timely withdrew it, (2) the court failed to inquire into an alleged breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, and (3) the court abused its discretion by denying a continuance to obtain new counsel.
- The trial court’s rulings were affirmed: the appellate court found the waiver presumptively valid (and appellant waived transcript-based challenge), no good-cause or timeliness supported substitution of counsel, and denial of the last-minute continuance was not an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of written jury waiver | State: waiver was executed and referenced in open court; presumptively valid | Ames: waiver was not knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily given and there was no proper on-the-record colloquy; he later withdrew his demand for jury trial orally | Waiver valid; appellant failed to provide transcript/statement so presumption of regularity applies; assignment overruled |
| Withdrawal of jury waiver | State: withdrawal was untimely / no proper basis | Ames: his oral request immediately before trial constituted withdrawal of the waiver | Court declined to address inadequately briefed argument; also timeliness and procedural rules require more than an oral last-minute request; assignment overruled |
| Substitution of counsel / breakdown in attorney-client relationship | State: no showing of breakdown or good cause; trial counsel willing to proceed | Ames: counsel–client relationship had broken down, requiring court inquiry and substitution | No good cause shown; disagreement over strategy is insufficient; request was untimely; trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Continuance to secure new counsel | State: denial reasonable given timing, pending duration, docket control, and potential delay | Ames: denial prevented securing new counsel and a jury trial | Denial not an abuse of discretion under Unger factors; last-minute request appeared dilatory; assignment overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (U.S. 1968) (Sixth Amendment jury right applied to states)
- State v. Lomax, 114 Ohio St.3d 350 (Ohio 2007) (requirements for valid written jury waiver under R.C. 2945.05)
- State v. Osie, 140 Ohio St.3d 131 (Ohio 2014) (waiver must be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent; silent record cannot supply waiver)
- Unger v. State, 67 Ohio St.2d 65 (Ohio 1981) (factors to evaluate denial of continuance)
- State v. Cowans, 87 Ohio St.3d 68 (Ohio 1999) (court may refuse substitution when counsel gives candid, competent advice; breakdown must jeopardize effective assistance)