State v. Williams, 2021 Ohio 4203

Brian Williams was indicted for kidnapping, felonious assault (with repeat violent-offender specification), and domestic violence arising from an incident with his wife.
Williams moved to represent himself; after a detailed October 19, 2020 colloquy the trial court granted the Faretta/Gibson waiver and appointed standby counsel.
A jury acquitted Williams of kidnapping but convicted him of felonious assault and domestic violence; the court found the repeat-violent-offender specification true.
The court sentenced Williams under the Reagan Tokes Act to a mandatory minimum of 11 years and an indefinite maximum of 15 years.
On appeal Williams raised three assignments of error: (1) improper grant of self-representation; (2) constitutional challenge to R.C. 2967.271 (Reagan Tokes Act); and (3) alleged sentencing errors under R.C. 2929.11/2929.12.
The Fifth District affirmed: waiver was valid, the Reagan Tokes challenge was not ripe for review, and the sentence was within statutory bounds and not clearly and convincingly contrary to law; Judge Gwin concurred in part but dissented as to ripeness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Williams)	Held
1. Whether the trial court erred in allowing Williams to represent himself	Court properly conducted a thorough Faretta/Gibson inquiry; waiver was knowing and voluntary; standby counsel appointed	Colloquy ended prematurely and did not give Williams a broad understanding of the whole matter	Waiver valid; trial court conducted a comprehensive inquiry and warnings; Assignment I denied
2. Whether constitutional challenge to the Reagan Tokes Act is ripe on direct appeal	Challenge not ripe until defendant serves minimum term and is subjected to extension under the Act; follow Fifth Dist. precedent	Statute violates separation of powers, jury trial right, and due process and is ripe for review now	Challenge not ripe for review on direct appeal; Assignment II denied (noting appellate conflict and Ohio Supreme Court review)
3. Whether sentencing violated Ohio felony sentencing statutes (R.C. 2929.11/2929.12)	Sentence is within statutory range; court considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 and PSI and thereby complied	Trial court failed to adequately consider statutory purposes/factors and record doesn't support findings	Sentence affirmed; within statutory range and not clearly and convincingly contrary to law; Assignment III denied

State v. Gibson, 45 Ohio St.2d 366, 345 N.E.2d 399 (Ohio 1976) (establishes requirements for a valid Faretta waiver)
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975) (constitutional right to self-representation)
Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U.S. 708 (U.S. 1948) (trial court must conduct penetrating and comprehensive inquiry before accepting waiver)
State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (standard of appellate review for felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08)
State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 169 N.E.3d 649 (Ohio 2020) (limits appellate courts from reweighing R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b))
Arnett v. State, 88 Ohio St.3d 208, 724 N.E.2d 793 (Ohio 2000) (trial court not required to use formulaic language to show it considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12)
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (Ohio 1954) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)