State v. Boatwright, 2020 Ohio 5068

Darren L. Boatwright was charged with first‑degree misdemeanor theft for stealing items from his employer (Walmart) and pleaded not guilty.
A bench trial occurred on December 17, 2019; Boatwright appeared pro se after complaining that his court‑appointed attorney had breached their relationship and requesting new counsel.
The trial court declined to appoint substitute counsel, instructed Boatwright to represent himself, and did not obtain a recorded Crim.R. 44(C) waiver or otherwise advise him fully of the dangers of self‑representation.
The State presented CCTV and testimony; Boatwright was found guilty after the bench trial.
The trial court sentenced Boatwright to 180 days in jail with 170 days suspended (and other non‑custodial terms).
On appeal Boatwright argued the court erred by (1) failing to appoint new counsel and (2) allowing him to proceed pro se without a knowing, intelligent, voluntary waiver under Crim.R. 44(B) and (C).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court validly accepted a waiver of counsel before forcing Boatwright to proceed pro se	State conceded the court did not secure a Crim.R. 44 waiver	Boatwright argued he did not knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily waive counsel and had requested substitute counsel	Court: Waiver was not shown to be valid; record does not affirmatively demonstrate a knowing, intelligent, voluntary waiver
Whether the trial court’s failure to comply with Crim.R. 44(B) requires reversal of conviction or sentence	State argued failure to comply does not void conviction but limits available punishment; conceded resentencing required as to confinement	Boatwright sought reversal or at least vacatur of confinement because no valid waiver was obtained	Court: Conviction affirmed; confinement portion of sentence reversed and remanded (vacate incarceration/suspended jail term); resentencing without confinement instructed

City of Garfield Heights v. Brewer, 17 Ohio App.3d 216 (Menn. Ct. App. 1984) (Sixth Amendment right to counsel applies to misdemeanors punishable by jail)
Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972) (no imprisonment for misdemeanor absent counsel or valid waiver)
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (defendant may waive counsel and proceed pro se but waiver must be knowing and voluntary and court should advise of risks)
State v. Gibson, 45 Ohio St.2d 366 (1976) (trial court must inquire to ensure waiver of counsel is intelligent)
State v. Glasure, 132 Ohio App.3d 227 (1999) (waiver of counsel may be express or implied; trial court must ensure defendant understands relinquishment)
State v. Ebersole, 107 Ohio App.3d 288 (1995) (court should inform defendant of dangers of self‑representation before accepting waiver)
State v. Dyer, 117 Ohio App.3d 92 (1996) (state bears burden to overcome presumption against waiver of the right to counsel)
Wellman v. State, 37 Ohio St.2d 162 (1974) (absent valid waiver, a person may not be imprisoned for a misdemeanor unless represented by counsel)