State v. Studer, 2021 Ohio 3177

Michael Studer was charged with first-degree misdemeanor Violating a Protection Order for messages sent to his ex, Amy Turos, on May 20, 2020.
A June 2019 Domestic Violence Civil Protection Order (CPO) prohibited Studer from initiating contact with Turos by any means; a 2018 juvenile-court custody order required communication about the child via Our Family Wizard (an app).
At trial Studer appeared without counsel, said he could not use the public defender (alleging a conflict) and had not applied for appointment; the court explained the appointment process but did not conduct a full waiver colloquy.
Turos testified the message contained intimidating/threatening language; the message was admitted and Deputy Burris concluded it violated the CPO.
The municipal court found Studer guilty, imposed a $250 fine, 180 days with 179 suspended, and one year supervised probation; Studer appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Right to counsel / waiver	Court gave required advisements; Studer refused PD and waived counsel	Studer never knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily waived; court failed to warn of risks of proceeding pro se	No valid waiver; conviction affirmed but suspended jail term and probation vacated (term of confinement reversed)
Sufficiency — recklessness element	Message contained threats/intimidation beyond allowable child-related communications; proved recklessness	Message concerned custody and was permissible under juvenile order permitting child-related communication via app; ambiguous orders defeated recklessness	Sufficient evidence: CPO barred all contact; several statements were unrelated to child and were reckless; conviction affirmed
Manifest weight	Victim testimony and message were credible; police review corroborated	Lack of further investigation, judge later said unfamiliar with CPO, and victim’s subjective feelings overstated	No miscarriage of justice; weight of evidence supports conviction

State v. Wellman, 309 N.E.2d 915 (Ohio 1974) (absence of valid waiver bars imprisonment)
Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387 (1977) (courts must indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver)
State v. Gibson, 345 N.E.2d 399 (Ohio 1976) (trial court must make sufficient inquiry for effective waiver)
State v. Jenks, 574 N.E.2d 492 (Ohio 1991) (standard for sufficiency review in criminal cases)
State v. Thompkins, 678 N.E.2d 541 (Ohio 1997) (distinguishing sufficiency and manifest-weight review)
State v. Obermiller, 63 N.E.3d 93 (Ohio 2016) (presumption against waiver and burden on state to show waiver)