2020 Ohio 1437
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Patterson was indicted in 2009 on aggravated murder, aggravated burglary, improperly discharging a firearm, and tampering with evidence; a jury convicted him in 2011 and the trial court imposed an aggregate term of 37 years to life.
- The original sentencing contained an improper postrelease-control (PRC) notification; the trial court later invoked R.C. 2929.191(C) to schedule a limited resentencing to correct the PRC notification.
- Patterson filed pro se notices asserting self-representation (Gibson/Faretta) and moved to correct a void judgment; he did not, before the hearing, request appointment of counsel.
- The trial court rescheduled the limited resentencing to occur by video conference from the correctional institution; Patterson objected at the hearing, asserting a right to be physically present and a right to counsel/consultation.
- The court overruled Patterson’s objections, proceeded via video, and did not appoint counsel; Patterson appealed solely on the ground the court erred by failing to appoint counsel at the resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by not appointing counsel at the limited resentencing under R.C. 2929.191(C) | Patterson had previously filed notices of self-representation and never timely requested appointment of counsel; R.C. 2929.191 allows video appearances and the court has limited duties on PRC correction. | Patterson argued he retained a right to counsel at the critical resentencing, objected to video, and did not knowingly and intelligently waive counsel for this hearing. | Court of Appeals reversed: the trial court should have stopped and inquired whether Patterson intended to abandon his earlier self-representation; failing to do so infringed Patterson’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel and rendered the sentence contrary to law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (recognizes the constitutional right to self-representation)
- State v. Gibson, 45 Ohio St.2d 366 (establishes required inquiry for effective waiver of counsel)
- State v. Schleiger, 141 Ohio St.3d 67 (holds right to counsel attaches at resentencing for statutorily mandated PRC)
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (explains appellate standard for reviewing felony sentences)
- Iowa v. Tovar, 541 U.S. 77 (no fixed script required for waiver; inquiry depends on case-specific factors)
- Hill v. Curtin, 792 F.3d 670 (discusses need for searching/formal inquiry before permitting pro se representation)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (defines clear-and-convincing-evidence standard)
- Brown v. Wainwright, 665 F.2d 607 (explains self-representation can be waived by failure to assert or by subsequent conduct)