State v. Wamsley, 2016 Ohio 2885

Defendant Stephen Wamsley was charged in Ashland Municipal Court with one count of first-degree misdemeanor assault for allegedly spraying the victim with Febreze; maximum statutory exposure was 180 days.
At arraignment Wamsley stated he had talked to a lawyer but declined to retain counsel and entered a not guilty plea pro se; the court explained charges and penalties but did not conduct an extended Faretta/Gibson-style colloquy.
Wamsley proceeded unrepresented to a jury trial, testified in his own defense, and the jury found him guilty.
The trial court sentenced him to 90 days incarceration (suspended) plus community control and other conditions.
On appeal Wamsley argued (1) the trial court failed to obtain a knowing, intelligent, voluntary waiver of counsel and failed to warn him of the dangers of self-representation and (2) prosecutorial misconduct in closing.
The Fifth District reversed, concluding the court did not adequately advise Wamsley before allowing pro se representation at a jury trial and vacated the conviction and sentence; the prosecutorial-misconduct claim was rendered moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court secured a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of counsel before permitting Wamsley to represent himself at a jury trial	The State: court complied with basic advisals at arraignment and Wamsley knowingly proceeded pro se	Wamsley: court failed to warn him of the dangers/disadvantages of self-representation or inquire sufficiently under Faretta/Gibson	Court: waiver invalid — judge did not rigorously convey dangers or ensure an intelligent waiver; conviction vacated
Proper remedy for deficient waiver in a misdemeanor case (vacate conviction vs. vacate only confinement)	The State: remedy narrower — at most vacate jail sentence, not the conviction	Wamsley: conviction must be vacated because waiver deficiency undermines his right to a fair trial and the Ohio Constitution affords broader protections	Court: majority vacated conviction and sentence; concurrence would instead affirm conviction but vacate any confinement portion
Prosecutorial misconduct in closing (raised on appeal)	Wamsley: prosecutor’s remarks deprived him of a fair trial	The State: comments were proper responses to testimony; no plain error	Court: disposition on waiver made this issue moot; concurrence would reject misconduct claim

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (recognizing a defendant’s constitutional right to self-representation and requiring that waiver of counsel be knowing and intelligent)
Patterson v. Illinois, 487 U.S. 285 (1988) (trial waivers require rigorous warnings about the perils of self-representation at trial)
Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938) (waiver of constitutional right must be an intentional relinquishment of a known right; court should ensure waiver appears on the record)
Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506 (1962) (presuming waiver from a silent record is impermissible; the record must show an offered and intelligently rejected right to counsel)
Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367 (1979) (federal rule limiting appointment of counsel based on actual imprisonment distinguishes fines from custodial penalties)
State v. Gibson, 45 Ohio St.2d 366 (1976) (Ohio standard: trial court must sufficiently inquire so defendant intelligently and competently waives counsel; must warn of the seriousness and consequences)
State v. Bode, 144 Ohio St.3d 155 (2015) (Ohio Constitution can require counsel whenever imprisonment is a possible sanction; possibility of confinement, not actual incarceration, triggers counsel protections)
State v. Griggs, 103 Ohio St.3d 85 (2004) (failure to inform defendant of constitutional rights can invalidate a plea as involuntary)