State v. Smallwood, 2020 Ohio 5556

Robert Smallwood was indicted for felonious assault (domestic violence; victim sustained a broken ankle) and tried by jury; he acted pro se at trial with standby counsel.
Appointed counsel repeatedly conflicted with Smallwood after Smallwood filed multiple pro se motions; the court repeatedly warned that hybrid representation was not permitted.
On January 9, 2019 the court pressed Smallwood to choose between counsel or self-representation; Smallwood reluctantly agreed to proceed pro se and the court appointed standby counsel.
A written waiver-of-counsel form was not signed until April 2, 2019 (one week before trial); the court instructed standby counsel to review the form with Smallwood rather than conducting a full on-the-record colloquy itself.
On appeal the Sixth District held the waiver invalid because the trial court failed to advise Smallwood, on the record, of the nature of the charges, the statutory offenses and range of punishments, possible defenses and mitigation, and other Von Moltke/Martin topics, and it erred by delegating that obligation to standby counsel; the case was remanded for a new trial.
Smallwood’s separate claim under R.C. 2947.23(A) (notice that community service could be imposed for unpaid costs) was rendered moot by the court’s disposition of the counsel-waiver issue.

Issue	Smallwood's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court ensured a knowing, intelligent, voluntary waiver of the right to counsel	Court failed to conduct an adequate on-the-record colloquy (no discussion of nature of charge, statutory elements, range of punishment, defenses, mitigation); waiver only signed weeks after he began self-representation and court delegated advisals to standby counsel	Smallwood repeatedly insisted on self-representation; written waiver and counsel’s review cured any colloquy defects	Waiver invalid. Court failed to advise required Von Moltke/Martin topics on the record and improperly delegated the duty to standby counsel; conviction reversed and remanded for new trial
Whether the trial court violated R.C. 2947.23(A) by not notifying defendant that community service could be imposed for unpaid costs	Court failed to give statutory notification	Notification unnecessary because a prison term was imposed	Denied as moot in light of reversal on counsel-waiver issue

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (recognition of the Sixth Amendment right to self-representation)
Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U.S. 708 (trial court must ensure waiver includes understanding of charges, penalties, defenses)
State v. Martin, 816 N.E.2d 227 (Ohio Supreme Court: insufficient colloquy and absent written waiver required reversal)
United States v. Hansen, 929 F.3d 1238 (trial judge—not defense counsel—must make the necessary on-record inquiries; duty cannot be delegated)
United States v. Padilla, 819 F.2d 952 (Von Moltke factors must appear on the record so review is not speculative)
State v. Engle, 917 N.E.2d 817 (colloquy inadequate where court failed to discuss nature of charges, penalties, defenses)
State v. McQueen, 706 N.E.2d 423 (a sketchy or minimal inquiry is insufficient to establish effective waiver)