State v. Condos, 2022 Ohio 112

Zachary Condos was charged with one count of criminal trespassing (Tallmadge Codified Ordinance 541.05), a fourth-degree misdemeanor; he pleaded not guilty and proceeded to a bench trial pro se.
At trial the court told Condos it was a fourth-degree misdemeanor punishable by up to 30 days and a $250 fine, noted the prosecutor’s plea offer (suspended jail), and confirmed Condos was representing himself but did not fully advise him of the nature of the charge, possible defenses, or the dangers of self-representation.
Witnesses (homeowner L.L., his wife, Sgt. Woofter, and Officer Quillen) testified Condos walked into the homeowner’s yard, cursed at the homeowner’s son, refused repeated demands to leave, and had previously been told not to return.
The trial court found Condos guilty and sentenced him to 30 days in jail (suspended), a $250 fine ($150 suspended), six months community control, and a no-contact order with the property/family.
On appeal Condos raised four assignments: (1) invalid waiver of counsel; (2) insufficiency of the evidence; (3) verdict against the manifest weight of the evidence; and (4) plain error in admitting other-acts/trespass evidence.
The appellate court sustained the waiver-of-counsel claim, overruled the sufficiency challenge, found the other two issues moot, and remanded for further proceedings giving Condos the opportunity to request a new trial or to seek vacation of the jail-term portion of the sentence.

Issue	State's Argument	Condos's Argument	Held
Validity of waiver of counsel / pro se right	Court adequately confirmed Condos was representing himself and warned about procedure; waiver valid	Trial court failed to ensure a voluntary, knowing, intelligent waiver (did not explain nature of charge, defenses, risks)	Waiver inadequate under Crim.R. 44(B) and Sixth Amendment; conviction vacated in part and case remanded so Condos can seek new trial or vacate jail term
Sufficiency of evidence of trespass (lack of privilege; on premises; refusal to leave)	Testimony established entry onto homeowner’s yard, repeated commands to leave, prior revocation of privilege — sufficient for conviction	Evidence insufficient: may have been on public area, no proof privilege was revoked, lack of authority to revoke, did not remain after told to leave	Evidence was sufficient; sufficiency challenge overruled (but overall remedy still governed by waiver error)
Manifest weight of the evidence	Verdict supported by testimony; not against manifest weight	Conviction against manifest weight	Moot (court declined to address)
Admission of other-acts trespass evidence	Prior incidents were relevant to privilege/revocation and identity	Admission was plain error (impermissible other-acts evidence)	Moot (court declined to address)

State v. Gibson, 45 Ohio St.2d 366 (1976) (trial court must inquire to ensure knowing, intelligent waiver of counsel)
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (defendant has right to self-representation; waiver must be voluntary and intelligent)
Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U.S. 708 (1948) (waiver of counsel requires awareness of nature of charges and consequences)
State v. Martin, 103 Ohio St.3d 385 (2004) (trial court must explain nature of charge, possible defenses, and penalties to validate waiver)
State v. Bode, 144 Ohio St.3d 155 (2015) (uncounseled adjudication can violate due process and require reversal)
State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (1996) (remand to allow defendant to withdraw involuntary plea or seek trial is appropriate relief)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (standard for sufficiency review: viewing evidence in light most favorable to the prosecution)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (standard of review for manifest-weight challenges)