State v. Wright, 2020 Ohio 6783

Sha-Dama Wright was charged with aggravated menacing (1st-degree misdemeanor) and littering (3rd-degree misdemeanor) in two municipal cases that were later consolidated.
The cases were continued multiple times; on October 29, 2019 Wright told the court she wanted new counsel and the court granted withdrawal but warned the December 3, 2019 trial date was firm "with or without counsel."
Wright’s newly retained counsel entered on November 12, 2019 and moved to continue the December 3 date (filed Nov. 26); the court denied the motion. Counsel renewed the request on Dec. 3 but left the courtroom to begin a conflicting trial.
The prosecutor proceeded; Wright declined to proceed without counsel, did not present evidence or argument, and the bench convicted and sentenced her. Wright’s new-trial motion was denied.
On appeal Wright argued the court (1) failed to adequately inquire into her dissatisfaction with prior counsel, (2) denied her right to counsel of choice, (3) forced her to proceed pro se without proper waiver, (4) sentenced her without counsel, and (5) improperly consolidated her cases. The city did not file a brief on appeal.
The Sixth District held the court violated Wright’s Sixth Amendment right by forcing her to proceed pro se without obtaining an express or adequately informed waiver; it reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial. The consolidation challenge was rejected and other assignments were ruled moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court properly permitted trial to proceed when Wright refused to proceed without counsel (waiver of right to counsel)	No brief filed on appeal	Court forced Wright to proceed pro se without a knowing, intelligent, voluntary waiver and without Von Moltke warnings	Court: Reversed — Sixth Amendment violated; new trial ordered
Whether the court made a sufficient inquiry into Wright’s dissatisfaction with prior counsel before denying counsel at trial	No brief filed on appeal	Court failed to conduct the required inquiry into reasons for dissatisfaction and the dangers of self-representation	Denied as moot (because reversal on waiver grounds)
Whether Wright was denied her right to be represented by counsel of her choice	No brief filed on appeal	Court improperly denied right to chosen counsel by proceeding despite counsel conflict and lack of informed waiver	Denied as moot
Whether sentencing without counsel was error	No brief filed on appeal	Wright argued sentencing in absence of counsel violated her rights	Denied as moot
Whether consolidation violated local rule by assigning cases to the higher-numbered case judge	No brief filed on appeal	Consolidation should have been into the case with the lower number per practice; assignment to Judge Howe was improper	Not well-taken — local rule does not require consolidation into lowest-numbered case

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (recognizes a defendant's right to self-representation)
Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U.S. 708 (1948) (describes the information a court must provide to secure a valid waiver of counsel)
State v. Weiss, 92 Ohio App.3d 681 (1993) (requires a Von Moltke-style inquiry before inferring a waiver where a defendant proceeds pro se)
State v. Ebersole, 107 Ohio App.3d 288 (1995) (waiver of counsel may be express or inferred)