State v. Ortega
2017 Ohio 239
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Ortega was indicted in multiple Hancock County cases; retained Scott Ramsey as counsel and pled not guilty.
- On the morning of a scheduled trial (case 2011‑CR‑217), Ortega told the court he disagreed with Ramsey’s recommendation about a plea and asked for new counsel, stating he didn’t trust Ramsey.
- The trial judge initially refused to immediately grant new counsel, presenting Ortega the choice to proceed with Ramsey or represent himself, but also discussed possible accommodations (continuance, adjusting related co‑defendant scheduling) if Ortega discharged counsel.
- The prosecutor described a plea offer that dismissed two trafficking counts; Ortega said he was unaware of that term and asked to confer with Ramsey; the court recessed to allow consultation.
- After conferring, Ortega declined to discharge Ramsey, accepted the plea, and later challenged on appeal that the court erred by denying his request for new counsel.
- The trial court denied relief; the appellate court affirmed, holding Ortega withdrew his motion by accepting the plea and thus could not claim the court abused its discretion (invited error/doctrine of choice).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Ortega) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Ortega’s mid‑trial request for new counsel | The court properly balanced docket control and timeliness; Ortega waited until trial day and gave no sufficient reason beyond disagreement | Ortega argued the court forced him to keep counsel or represent himself, depriving him of choice of counsel and effective assistance | The motion was not decided because Ortega accepted the plea after conferring with counsel; no abuse of discretion shown and error (if any) was invited by Ortega’s own choice |
Key Cases Cited
- Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) (Sixth Amendment right to counsel requires effective assistance)
- Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153 (1988) (choice of counsel limited by court’s control over proceedings)
- Gonzalez‑Lopez v. United States, 548 U.S. 140 (2006) (retained‑counsel choice is protected but not absolute)
- United States v. Krzyske, 836 F.2d 1013 (6th Cir. 1988) (court may deny last‑minute substitutions to preserve docket integrity)
- United States v. Mays, 69 F.3d 116 (6th Cir. 1995) (courts must balance defendant’s counsel preference against administration of justice)
- State v. Kennan, 81 Ohio St.3d 133 (1998) (abuse of discretion standard and definition)