State v. Capers, 2011 Ohio 2443

December 15, 2009, Capers discharged a gun into the floor during an altercation with Miller in Roark’s apartment building; both Miller and Capers denied seeing or firing a gun.
Capers was charged with multiple offenses including having a weapon under disability with firearm specifications, possession of cocaine, aggravated menacing, domestic violence, and discharging a firearm into a habitation; trial was to the court (bench trial).
During trial, Capers sought greater involvement in his defense; the court allowed recall and questioning of witnesses and permitted Capers to present a closing argument with counsel; counsel remained appointed.
The court found Capers not guilty of discharging a firearm at/into a habitation and domestic violence, but guilty of the remaining counts and merged certain weapon-counts and specifications; sentencing included mandatory post-release control, but the notification at sentencing hearing was defective.
On appeal, the court sustained Capers’ first assignment regarding post-release control notification and remanded for compliance with 2929.19.1 procedures, while other assignments were overruled; judgment largely affirmed with partial reversal.
Capers’ post-release control issue prompted remand for proper notification and procedures; other asserted errors were rejected.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Post-release control notification error	Capers argues sentencing lacked proper post-release control notice	State contends remedy under 2929.19.1 governs post-2006 sentences	First assignment sustained; remanded for compliance with 2929.19.1 procedures.
Hybrid or invited representation	Capers pressed for greater self-involvement via hybrid representation	State defers to trial court’s discretion; no constitutional right to hybrid representation	No reversible error; invited error doctrine applies; no plain error established.
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Counsel failed to hire experts and to pursue certain lines of questioning	Capers did not show prejudice from counsel’s conduct	Argument rejected; no reasonable probability that result would differ.
Sufficiency/weight of evidence	Evidence insufficient for weapon-under-disability conviction and other counts	Evidence viewed in pro-prosecution light supports verdicts	Convictions supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight; no reversal on this basis.

State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173 (2009-Ohio-6434) (remedial post-release-control procedures apply to post-2006 sentences)
State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21 (2004-Ohio-6085) (failure to notify post-release control at sentencing requires vacatur and remand)
State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010-Ohio-6238) (clarifies post-release control procedures post-Singleton)
State v. Martin, 103 Ohio St.3d 385 (2004-Ohio-5471) (no constitutional right to hybrid representation; invited-error principles apply)
State v. Williams, 123 Ohio App.3d 233 (1997-Ohio-) (trial court should inquire into defense counsel issues when conflicts arise)
State v. King, 104 Ohio App.3d 434 (1995-Ohio-) (duty to inquire into attorney-client relationship when defendant questions counsel)
State v. Madrigal, 87 Ohio St.3d 378 (2000-Ohio- ) (standard for ineffective assistance: deficiency and prejudice)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes performance and prejudice standard for ineffective assistance)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (test for weight of evidence and sufficiency discussed in de novo review)
State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (1978) (plain-error review standard)
State v. Dent, 2002-Ohio-4522 (9th Dist.) (plain-error review applicable to evidentiary errors on appeal)