State v. Monford, 960 N.E.2d 440

Indicted in 2009 on murder, attempted murder, felonious assault, and carrying a concealed weapon arising from 2008 shooting.
Monford initially pled not guilty; trial court allowed an NGRI plea, and a doctor was appointed for evaluation, but no report entered.
Before trial, co-counsel became unavailable; Monford was represented solely by remaining counsel, Younkin.
During trial, the NGRI plea was not mentioned and the jury received no instructions regarding insanity.
Jury found Monford guilty on all counts; sentence was 28 years to life; the Tenth District affirmed; this court granted jurisdiction for two propositions of law.
This dissent opposes dismissal of the appeal as improvidently accepted and would hold that failure to state withdrawal of an NGRI plea is not structural error and need not automatically reverse the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether failing to address withdrawal of an NGRI plea is structural error	Monford argues structural error; Cihonski supports it	State argues no structural error as in Tenth District	Not structural error
Whether failure to address NGRI constitutes ineffective assistance	Monford contends counsel failed to advocate NGRI	State argues no deficient performance given trial strategy	Not ineffective assistance

State v. Cihonski, 178 Ohio App.3d 713 (2008-Ohio-5191) (insanity instruction and failure to address NGRI can be structural in some contexts)
State v. Perry, 101 Ohio St.3d 1 (2004-Ohio-297) (structural error limited class; standards for structural errors)
State v. Drummond, 111 Ohio St.3d 14 (2006-Ohio-5084) (definition of structural error; framework of error analysis)
Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991) (structural error framework (US Supreme Court))
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Poole, 33 Ohio St.2d 18 (1973) (affirmative defenses and burden of proof)