State v. Washington
2012 Ohio 1531
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Washington was indicted in CR-535298 for aggravated robbery, kidnapping, two theft counts, a defaced firearm, and weaponry while under disability; he initially pled not guilty and a bench trial occurred.
- During trial, Washington retracted his not guilty plea on Feb. 3, 2011 and pled guilty to one theft count and one attempt to have a weapon while under disability, with the court requiring co-defendant concurrence.
- On Feb. 7, 2011 Washington filed a pro se motion to withdraw his plea; his counsel later moved to withdraw from representation.
- The trial court granted the withdrawal of counsel, appointed new counsel, and held a hearing on the pro se motion, explaining that appellate case law did not allow proceeding pro se if appointed counsel disagreed.
- Washington insisted on proceeding pro se and the court concluded the pro se withdrawal motion was not properly before it; Washington was sentenced to 36 months of community control, 300 hours of community service, and drug rehabilitation.
- The court later affirmed the convictions but remanded to correct the journal entry to include the conditions of community control.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant was entitled to be advised of pro se standby-counsel option | Washington | Washington | Overruled; no error found regarding standby-counsel advisement. |
| Whether journal entry must reflect community-control conditions | State | Washington | Remanded to include conditions in the journal entry. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Martin, 103 Ohio St.3d 385 (2004 Ohio Supreme Court) (establishes independent rights to counsel vs. standby counsel; hybrid representation prohibited)
- State v. Gatewood, 2009-Ohio-5610 (Ohio 2d Dist.) (standby counsel independent of right to representation; informs analysis of proceedings without counsel)
- Edmonds, 2011-Ohio-1282 (Ohio 2d Dist.) (standby counsel not ineffective for absence from all proceedings; no Sixth Amendment right to standby counsel)
- Pizzarro, 2011-Ohio-611 (Ohio 8th Dist.) (entertaining pro se motion while represented constitutes hybrid representation—not proper)
- Davis, 2006-Ohio-193 (Ohio 10th Dist.) (pro se motions filed during counsel representation may be struck)
- McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1984) (standby counsel is not an absolute right; proper considerations for proceeding without counsel)