State v. Corder
2017 Ohio 6990
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Steven L. Corder was indicted on multiple sexual-offense counts involving a minor; after trial the jury convicted him of one count of gross sexual imposition and the bench convicted him of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor. He was sentenced to a total of 10 years' imprisonment.
- Before trial (Nov. 2015) Corder expressed a desire to fire appointed counsel; the court refused that request and continued the case.
- Over the following year Corder filed multiple pro se motions asserting specific deficiencies by counsel, primarily failure to communicate and to obtain certain records. The trial court never substantively ruled on or on-the-record inquired into those motions before or during the January 2017 trial.
- At trial, limited witnesses (the alleged victim, her mother, Corder’s girlfriend, and a detective) testified; there was no physical evidence and some investigative materials were not preserved.
- After conviction and sentencing, Corder appealed raising three assignments of error: (1) sentencing—failure to make statutory findings for consecutive terms; (2) ineffective representation / failure to inquire into his complaints about counsel (Deal inquiry); and (3) improper opinion testimony from a detective about child-victim behavior.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Corder) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court fail to make the required on-the-record inquiry into specific complaints about appointed counsel (Deal duty)? | The State argued Corder waived the issue by not pressing it at trial. | Corder argued he repeatedly raised specific complaints (in counsel’s November statement and in pro se motions) and the court therefore had a duty to inquire. | The court reversed and remanded: trial court failed to conduct the required Deal inquiry; remand for on-the-record inquiry and possible new trial if complaints well-founded. |
| Were sentencing findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) adequate for consecutive terms? | State contended sentence was proper. | Corder challenged consecutive-sentence findings. | Mooted by reversal on counsel-inquiry ground; court did not decide merits. |
| Did the trial court err by admitting detective’s testimony about typical juvenile disclosure without expert qualification? | State defended admissibility and relevance. | Corder argued such opinion testimony required expert qualification. | Unripe/moot: decision remanded, so court declined to reach this issue now. |
| Was there waiver of the Deal duty because defendant did not reiterate complaints during trial? | State argued waiver; cited cases where pretrial complaints not renewed at trial were treated as waived. | Corder argued earlier pro se filings and defense counsel’s statement preserved the complaint and the court had already rejected it on the record. | Majority: no waiver—court had duty to inquire; Dissent: would find waiver because defendant did not press complaint during trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006) (right to counsel of choice is structural error)
- Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153 (1988) (trial court’s broad discretion balancing choice of counsel and fair administration)
- Caplin & Drysdale v. United States, 491 U.S. 617 (1989) (court’s interest in ethical, fair proceedings limits defendant’s counsel choice)
- Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1 (1983) (trial court discretion in managing lawyer–client conflicts)
- State v. Jones, 91 Ohio St.3d 335 (2001) (factors for substitution-of-counsel decisions: timeliness, adequacy of court inquiry, and communication breakdown)
- State v. Deal, 17 Ohio St.2d 17 (1969) (trial court must conduct on-the-record inquiry into specific complaints about appointed counsel)