State v. Smith, 2012 Ohio 5420

Defendant Christopher Smith was indicted on receiving stolen property, two counts of failure to comply, and a DUI charge stemming from a vehicle theft and police pursuit.
Smith requested to proceed pro se; the court conducted extensive colloquies, advised him of dangers of self-representation, and urged continued counsel.
Smith repeatedly asserted he could represent himself and understood the proceedings; the court reviewed charges, defenses, penalties, and trial procedures.
A written waiver of counsel and express intent to proceed pro se was signed after the court explained it and ensured understanding.
Smith proceeded to trial pro se; he was convicted on all counts and sentenced to 36 months with possible post-release control.
On appeal, Smith contends the waiver of counsel was not knowingly and intelligently made.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the waiver of right to counsel knowingly and intelligently made?	Smith argues the waiver was not knowledgeable.	Smith asserts insufficient inquiry into understanding and consequences.	Waiver deemed knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made; assignment overruled.

Gibson, 45 Ohio St.2d 236 (1976) (requirement to ensure knowing waiver of counsel)
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (constitutional right to self‑representation with eyes open)
Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U.S. 708 (1948) (test for valid waiver of rights: aware of charges, defenses, penalties, etc.)
Jackson, 145 Ohio App.3d 223 (2001) (reliance on Gibson and Faretta in waiver context)