State v. Burrell, 2014 Ohio 1356

Defendant Charles E. Burrell, Jr. was indicted on multiple counts including felonious assault, domestic violence, criminal damaging, menacing by stalking, aggravated menacing, and telecommunications harassment arising from incidents with a former partner and repeated threatening calls/texts.
At trial the victim testified about prior and recent assaults, including a burn to her hand, and identified threatening texts; law enforcement introduced phone records and extracted message content from phones; a booking‑room DVD showing Burrell using his phone was played.
On the first day of jury trial (January 15, 2013) Burrell asked the court for new counsel, alleging dishonesty, withholding of evidence (DVD/video), poor communication, and disrespect; he said these problems had existed months earlier but had not been raised with the court until trial day.
Defense counsel told the court he had prepared for trial, discussed strategy and records with Burrell, and initially denied the existence of videos (though a booking DVD existed and was later used at trial).
The trial court held an inquiry, found no specific substantiation of an irreconcilable breakdown or prejudice, denied the last‑minute request for substitute counsel, and the jury convicted Burrell on all counts; he was sentenced to seven years.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused discretion in denying a request for new counsel made on trial day	Court should deny last‑minute requests made in bad faith or for delay; ensure orderly administration	Burrell: there was a severe breakdown in the attorney‑client relationship (dishonesty, withheld evidence, poor communication) warranting substitution	Denial affirmed; court properly inquired, defendant gave few specifics, request made on trial day suggested bad faith, no showing of jeopardized defense
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to disclose evidence and for poor communication	State: counsel’s performance was reasonable and consistent with trial strategy; no prejudice	Burrell: counsel failed to inform him of all evidence (DVD) and did not build trusting relationship, denying effective assistance	No ineffective assistance; counsel presented a credibility defense, cross‑examined witnesses, omission of DVD did not prejudice outcome given strong phone records and message content

Cowans v. State, 87 Ohio St.3d 68 (recognizes abuse‑of‑discretion review for denial of substitute counsel)
Deal v. State, 17 Ohio St.2d 17 (trial judge must inquire into complaints about counsel and make inquiry part of record)
Thurston v. Maxwell, 3 Ohio St.2d 92 (no right to court‑appointed counsel of choice)
Blankenship v. State, 102 Ohio App.3d 534 (no requirement that appointed counsel develop a "meaningful relationship")
Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1 (hostility or poor relations do not alone require substitution absent impairment of representation)
Coleman v. Mitchell, 37 Ohio St.3d 286 (defendant must show breakdown so serious it jeopardizes effective assistance)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two‑part test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
Madrigal v. State, 87 Ohio St.3d 378 (adopts Strickland standard in Ohio ineffective‑assistance claims)
Haberek v. State, 47 Ohio App.3d 35 (last‑minute substitution motions suggest bad faith/delay and may be denied)