State v. Scott, 2014 Ohio 2993

Appellant Patrell M. Scott pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to amended counts of involuntary manslaughter (third-degree felony with a three-year firearm specification) and tampering with evidence (third-degree felony) for the 6/23/2011 shooting death of Melesia Day.
Plea entered 5/14/2012; sentencing held 8/8/2012. State requested maximum consecutive terms; victim’s mother gave a victim-impact statement.
Trial court sentenced Scott to 4 years (manslaughter) + 3 years (firearm spec) served consecutively with 3 years (tampering) — total 10 years (credit for time served).
At sentencing defense counsel said Scott told him upon arrival he wished to obtain new counsel; the court immediately overruled that request.
Scott appealed, arguing (1) the trial court failed to make the statutory findings required for consecutive sentences and (2) the court violated his Sixth Amendment right by denying his request to seek new counsel without inquiry.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court made required findings for consecutive sentences	State: Court satisfied statutory requirements and findings supported by record	Scott: Record lacks explicit statutory findings and reasons for consecutive terms	Court: Findings implicit and sufficient; consecutive sentence not contrary to law
Standard of review for post-H.B. 86 consecutive sentences	State: Kalish two-step remains applicable; R.C. 2953.08(G) review also controls	Scott: Urged adopting Venes and different standard under R.C. 2953.08	Court: Continued to apply Kalish framework and R.C. 2953.08(G); no clear-and-convincing error found
Whether trial court had to state reasons on the record for consecutive findings	State: No longer required to state reasons; findings alone suffice	Scott: Court failed to articulate statutory reasons and rationale	Court: No requirement to recite statute verbatim or give reasons; record shows required findings
Whether denial of late request to seek new retained counsel violated Sixth Amendment	State: Request was untimely; defendant had retained counsel and had months to replace counsel; court did not abuse discretion	Scott: Court should have inquired into reasons before denying; denial infringed right to counsel of choice	Court: Request was neither timely nor in good faith; no obligation to perform specific inquiry for retained counsel; denial not an abuse of discretion

State v. Hunter, 131 Ohio St.3d 67 (Ohio 2011) (addresses preservation/plain-error review for sentencing challenges)
State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (Ohio 2008) (established two-step appellate review for sentencing)
Mempa v. Rhay, 389 U.S. 128 (U.S. 1967) (sentencing is a critical stage requiring right to counsel)
Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349 (U.S. 1977) (defendant entitled to effective assistance at sentencing)
Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (U.S. 1932) (right to counsel of choice is not absolute; must be balanced against orderly administration)
Linton v. Perini, 656 F.2d 207 (6th Cir. 1981) (factors for evaluating continuance to obtain counsel of choice)
U.S. v. Iles, 906 F.2d 1122 (6th Cir. 1990) (appointment-counsel substitution jurisprudence; timeliness and good faith required)
United States v. Burton, 584 F.2d 485 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (right to retain counsel must be balanced against court docket and public interest)
State v. Murphy, 91 Ohio St.3d 516 (Ohio 2001) (trial court’s discretion in denying change of counsel requests)
State v. Cowans, 87 Ohio St.3d 68 (Ohio 1999) (analysis of substitution-of-counsel and trial-court inquiry)