State v. RidleyState v. Ridley
DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Decided: July 13, 2011
* * * * *
George Ridley, pro se.
* * * * *
PER CURIAM.
{¶ 1} Appellant, George Ridley, has filed a motion pro se to strike certain telephone recordings from the record on appeal. Appellant is represented by counsel and this court cannot entertain motions filed by appellant pro se. See State v. Tenace, 109 Ohio St.3d 451, 2006-Ohio-2987, ¶ 10; State v. Keenan (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 133. In State v. Keenan, the Ohio Supreme Court explained:
{¶ 2} “A defendant has no right to a ‘hybrid’ form of representation wherein he is represented by counsel, but also acts simultaneously as his own counsel. McKaskle, 465 U.S. at 183, 104 S. Ct. at 953, 79 L. Ed. 2d at 136; State v. Thompson (1987), 33 Ohio St. 3d 1, 6, 514 N.E.2d 407, 414.” State v. Keenan at 138.
{¶ 3} Accordingly, the motion is ordered stricken from the record.
MOTION DENIED.
Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. _______________________________
JUDGE
Thomas J. Osowik, P.J. _______________________________
Stephen A. Yarbrough, J. JUDGE
CONCUR. _______________________________
JUDGE