State v. Dumas, 2011 Ohio 1003

Complaint filed Nov 23, 2009 in Youngstown Municipal Court charging Dumas with assault, a first-degree misdemeanor under R.C. 2903.13(A), based on alleged conduct toward his ex-girlfriend.
Dumas appeared for two pretrials without counsel; counsel was later appointed; trial date set for Feb 17, 2009; defendant sought continuances and a jury trial but the requests were denied.
During pretrial proceedings, the court warned Dumas for interruptions and imposed contempt sanctions including jail time; trial proceeded in his absence.
At trial, the alleged victim testified to the assault; Dumas interrupted and the court warned of further contempt; the court proceeded with the trial in his absence after removal for disrespect.
The trial court convicted Dumas of assault (six months in jail, $500 fine) and found him in contempt (18 months); on appeal, the court affirmed assault and contempt but reversed the contempt sentence and remanded for resentencing; the remaining issues were decided against Dumas.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there error in denying substitute counsel?	Dumas’s request appeared as a delay tactic; no good cause shown.	Right to counsel of choice violated; good cause existed due to breakdown in communication.	No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed.
Was due process violated by contempt finding without defense opportunity?	Contempt was direct and premised on conduct before the court; emergency nature allowed summary punishment.	Dumas should have had a hearing and opportunity to present defenses.	Direct contempt; no due process violation; affirmed.
Was the contempt sentence proportionate and within discretion?	Cumulative contempt sentences reflect legitimate enforcement; within statutory range.	One-and-a-half year sentence for contempt far exceeds underlying offense and is excessive.	Contempt sentence reversed; remanded for resentencing.

State v. Cowans, 87 Ohio St.3d 68 (1999) (abuse of discretion standard for substitution of counsel)
State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151 (1980) (no right to counsel of choice; good cause deemed necessary)
United States v. Iles, 906 F.2d 1122 (6th Cir. 1990) (requirements for substitute counsel; conflicts or breakdown in communication)
State v. Pruitt, 18 Ohio App.3d 50 (1984) (good cause for substitution includes irreconcilable conflict)
United States v. Calabro, 467 F.2d 973 (2d Cir. 1972) (guidance on substitution of counsel; balancing right vs. public interest)
United States v. Jennings, 83 F.3d 145 (6th Cir. 1996) (balancing right to counsel with prompt administration of justice)
State v. Davis, 2007-Ohio-7216 (7th Dist.) (concerns on substitution requests in Ohio appellate context)
In re Wingrove, 2003-Ohio-549 (4th Dist.) (direct contempt procedures; immediacy and necessity for punishment)
Denovchek v. Trumbull Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 36 Ohio St.3d 14 (1988) (definition of direct contempt and court authority)
Windham Bank v. Tomaszczyk, 27 Ohio St.2d 55 (1971) (historic standard for contempt and court power)
Kilbane, 61 Ohio St.2d 201 (1980) (direct contempt framework; court’s power to define conduct)