State v. Armstrong
2016 Ohio 2627
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Armstrong was indicted on four counts arising from a traffic stop of his car on I-77: trafficking heroin (50–250g), possession, possession of criminal tools, and criminal simulation; forfeiture specifications attached to most counts.
- He pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to trafficking and criminal simulation; remaining counts were nolled and sentencing was continued for a PSI.
- Three days after pleading, Armstrong filed motions based on "freeman"/sovereign-citizen theories, attempted to remove counsel, and sought to withdraw his plea claiming he was not subject to the court’s jurisdiction.
- At the sentencing hearing the court denied the motion to withdraw the plea, found the sovereign-citizen arguments frivolous and a delay tactic, and removed Armstrong from the courtroom after disruptive behavior; Armstrong was then sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment.
- Armstrong appealed raising numerous assignments of error (many pro se) including denial of self-representation, improper denial of plea withdrawal, ineffective assistance of counsel for abandoning the suppression motion, jurisdictional challenges, prosecutorial misconduct, and competency concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to self-representation | Trial court properly required an unequivocal, timely waiver and inquiry before allowing self-rep. | Armstrong contends he terminated counsel and wanted to proceed pro se shortly after plea. | Denied — request was equivocal (sovereign-citizen rhetoric) and untimely; trial court properly refused. |
| Motion to withdraw guilty plea (presentence) | Court followed Rule 11, held hearing, and applied Peterseim factors. | Armstrong said plea was based on bad advice, change of heart, and ineffective counsel. | Denied — plea was knowingly, voluntarily entered; motion appeared to be delay/change of heart. |
| Ineffective assistance for withdrawing suppression motion | Counsel acted reasonably and pursued plea strategy; suppression would likely fail. | Armstrong argues counsel abandoned a viable suppression claim and prejudiced him. | Denied — representation not deficient given video and facts; plea included waiver of suppression; no prejudice shown. |
| Competence / mental capacity to plead | Plea colloquy showed Armstrong understood rights and consequences; no contemporaneous signs of incompetence. | Armstrong asserts mental disorder made plea involuntary; court should have inquired before denying withdrawal. | Denied — record shows competence at plea hearing; erratic behavior occurred later and reflected change of heart. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Johnson, 112 Ohio St.3d 210, 858 N.E.2d 1144 (Ohio 2006) (standards for waiver of right to counsel and self-representation)
- State v. Cassano, 96 Ohio St.3d 94, 772 N.E.2d 81 (Ohio 2002) (invocation of self-representation must be clear and unequivocal)
- State v. Vrabel, 99 Ohio St.3d 184, 790 N.E.2d 303 (Ohio 2003) (timeliness and motive for request to proceed pro se matters)
- State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521, 584 N.E.2d 715 (Ohio 1992) (standard for presentence withdrawal of plea)
- Peterseim v. State, 68 Ohio App.2d 211, 428 N.E.2d 863 (Ohio App. 8th Dist.) (factors for reviewing denial of presentence plea withdrawal)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (U.S. 1970) (court may remove or restrain disruptive defendants to preserve proceedings)
- State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197, 893 N.E.2d 163 (Ohio 2008) (what constitutes a final appealable order under Crim.R. 32(C))