State v. Frederick
2020 Ohio 714
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- On July 25, 2017 S.F. called 9-1-1 reporting that her husband, Anthony Frederick, had attacked her, grabbed a knife, and slashed the tires on her vehicle; she stated Frederick prevented her from reentering the house where their children were.
- Deputies stopped a minivan leaving the residence; Frederick was a passenger and was arrested after officers spoke with S.F. and a witness (D.C.). Photographs showed flat/slashed tires.
- Frederick was charged with domestic violence (first-degree misdemeanor), disorderly conduct (fourth-degree misdemeanor, reduced to minor misdemeanor by jury finding), and criminal damaging or endangering (second-degree misdemeanor).
- The originally appointed public defender moved to withdraw; a successor counsel also sought to withdraw and was made stand-by counsel. Frederick told the court he wished to proceed pro se, but the court did not conduct a full Crim.R. 44(B) waiver colloquy before permitting self-representation.
- At trial the jury acquitted Frederick of domestic violence, convicted him of disorderly conduct (minor misdemeanor) and criminal damaging, and the court imposed 12 months community control, fines, community service, counseling, no-contact, and GPS monitoring.
- On appeal Frederick raised: (1) invalid waiver of counsel/pro se error, (2) insufficient evidence as to lack of consent for criminal damaging, and (3) insufficient evidence for disorderly conduct. The appellate court sustained the first assignment, overruled the second and third, affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Validity of pro se waiver under Crim.R. 44(B) | State: waiver was clear and unequivocal; Frederick made filings and declared desire to proceed pro se. | Frederick: court failed to conduct required colloquy to ensure waiver was knowing, intelligent, voluntary. | Reversed on this issue — colloquy was inadequate; waiver invalid. |
| 2. Sufficiency of evidence — criminal damaging (owner consent) | State: 9‑1‑1 call, witness statements, and photos show S.F. owned the vehicle and did not consent. | Frederick: conflicting evidence about vehicle ownership and lack of proof of nonconsent. | Overruled — evidence sufficient to show damage without owner consent. |
| 3. Sufficiency of evidence — disorderly conduct (inconvenience/annoyance/alarm) | State: S.F. was distraught on 9‑1‑1 call; conduct (slashing tires, preventing departure) caused alarm and annoyance. | Frederick: no proof he caused inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm. | Overruled — evidence sufficient to sustain disorderly conduct conviction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (right to counsel for indigent defendants in serious offenses)
- Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (right to counsel when imprisonment is actually imposed)
- Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367 (no federal right to counsel where imprisonment is only a possibility and none actually imposed)
- State v. Bode, 144 Ohio St.3d 155 (Ohio may afford greater protections than federal baseline on right to counsel)
- State v. Schleiger, 141 Ohio St.3d 67 (Ohio precedent treating possibility of confinement as trigger for counsel in misdemeanors)
- State v. Brooke, 113 Ohio St.3d 199 (colloquy required to show knowing and voluntary waiver for petty offenses)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)