2019 Ohio 816
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Charles Tingler was convicted in 2015 of inducing panic and related offenses and later granted judicial release in November 2016, subject to three years of community control with 28 conditions.
- By April 2017 the probation department charged Tingler with violating three community-control conditions; a revocation hearing was ultimately held June 30, 2017.
- Tingler alternated between requesting appointed counsel (with conditions that counsel be outside Ottawa County and not from the Ohio Public Defender) and waiving counsel; the trial court found him indigent and appointed Ohio Public Defender (OPD) counsel as standby while Tingler proceeded pro se.
- At the revocation hearing Tingler did not meaningfully consult standby counsel, did not cross-examine the probation officer witness, and presented no testimony or exhibits.
- The probation officer testified to missed mental-health appointments, difficulty supervising Tingler due to repetitive complaints/grievances and demanding use of transportation services, and short-lived employment attempts; the court found Tingler violated conditions and revoked community control, reimposing the remaining four-year sentence.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Tingler's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by not appointing counsel from the court-appointed list rather than OPD | Trial court properly appointed competent OPD counsel; indigent defendants are not entitled to counsel of their choice; OPD was the only willing option | Trial court should have replaced OPD with someone from the court-appointed list (or outside Ottawa County) after Tingler showed "irregularities" with prior counsel | Court: No abuse of discretion; Tingler waived and chose to proceed pro se; he failed to show "good cause" for substitute appointed counsel |
| Whether revocation was against the manifest weight / an abuse of discretion because evidence did not establish violations | Probation testimony and exhibits showed failure to follow treatment, misuse of services, harassment/complaints making supervision untenable; substantial evidence supported revocation | Many cited acts were lawful or not breaches of specific conditions (e.g., criticism/complaints, temporary rent issues, transportation disputes); State failed to prove willful noncompliance | Court: Substantial evidence supported at least one violation (missed/hidden mental-health appointment and failure to be of general good behavior); revocation not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether the court improperly relied on conduct that was protected or permissible (e.g., filing grievances) | Supervisory testimony showed repetitive complaints and grievances interfered with supervision and reentry, supporting the general-good-behavior condition | Filing grievances and petitions were protected and lawful; mere annoyance is not grounds for revocation | Court: Some lawful actions were noted, but the record showed repeated conduct that undermined supervision; revocation was supported by substantial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Thurston v. Maxwell, 3 Ohio St.2d 92 (trial-court selection of appointed counsel reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (abuse-of-discretion standard defined)
- State v. Fry, 125 Ohio St.3d 163 (indigent defendants not entitled to counsel of their choice)
- State v. Henness, 79 Ohio St.3d 53 (need to show breakdown in attorney-client relationship to justify substitution)
- State v. Martin, 103 Ohio St.3d 385 (standby counsel does not create hybrid representation)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (effective-assistance/conflict-of-interest principles)
- State v. Edsall, 113 Ohio App.3d 337 (showing "good cause" for appointment of substitute counsel)