State v. Orr, 2014 Ohio 4814

Darllel Orr was indicted in 2013 for a 1993 rape after a CODIS DNA match while he was jailed on unrelated homicide charges.
Orr repeatedly refused appointed or standby counsel and consistently refused to answer the trial court’s questions necessary to establish a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of counsel.
Orr’s obstructive conduct (interruptions, contempt finding, removals from the courtroom) prevented the court from making the required on-the-record waiver colloquy.
On December 24, 2013, the trial court found Orr had relinquished his right to self-representation because he refused to participate in the waiver inquiry; counsel was later appointed to allow an interlocutory appeal of that finding.
The court of appeals affirmed, holding the trial court acted within its discretion to find the right to self-representation relinquished where the defendant’s conduct precluded a valid waiver colloquy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly found Orr relinquished his right to self-representation when he refused to participate in the colloquy	State: The court may treat a defendant’s persistent refusal to engage in waiver colloquy as relinquishment of the right to self-representation so proceedings can continue	Orr: He asserted a right to represent himself and refused counsel; the court should have accepted his waiver and proceed without the colloquy	Affirmed: Court may find relinquishment where defendant’s obstruction prevents an on-the-record, knowing, intelligent waiver inquiry (trial judge has discretion to maintain order)
Whether the indictment was insufficient as read at arraignment / other pretrial claims (discovery, speedy trial)	State: These issues are not properly before the court in an interlocutory appeal from the relinquishment finding	Orr: Argued indictment lacked victim/location and raised discovery and speedy-trial violations	Held: These claims are not ripe for interlocutory review; they must be raised on appeal from a final judgment (trial court’s interlocutory order not a final appealable order)

Gibson v. State, 45 Ohio St.2d 366 (establishes requirement that waiver of counsel appear affirmatively on the record)
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (defendant has Sixth Amendment right to self-representation; waiver must be knowing and intelligent)
Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (right to self-representation is not absolute)
State v. Dyer, 117 Ohio App.3d 92 (courts indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver of counsel)
State v. Cassano, 96 Ohio St.3d 94 (waiver must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary)
Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (trial judges may control disruptive defendants to maintain order)
State ex rel. Steckman v. Jackson, 70 Ohio St.3d 420 (interlocutory orders that are not final appealable orders cannot be reviewed)