Toledo v. DandridgeToledo v. Dandridge
DECISION AND JUDGMENT
* * * * *
Keith Dandridge, pro se.
* * * * *
PER CURIAM.
{¶ 1} This matter is before the court on appellant‘s “Motion for Reconsideration of
Motion for Reconsideration
{¶ 2} On November 10, 2010, appellant, Keith D. Dandridge, a self-identified “Natural Moor,” who also goes by the name, Keith Dandridge-El, filed a notice of appeal. The appeal arises from judgments of the Toledo Municipal Court, involving consolidated case numbers CRB-10-10207 and TRD-10-12906. Appellant also filed an affidavit of indigency, docketing statement, praecipe, “Statement(s) of Assignments of Error to be Presented on Appeal,” and an “Order for Partial Transcript.”
{¶ 3} On December 20, 2010, the trial court granted an extension of time for transmission of the record. On December 21, 2010, the trial court stayed appellant‘s sentences pending appeal. The record was eventually filed on January 20, 2011.
{¶ 4} On February 1, 2011, upon his request, this court granted an extension to appellant to file his brief on or before February 24, 2011. Appellant‘s second request for an extension of time to file his brief was filed on February 24, 2011. In that motion, he asked for “an indefinite amount of time to file briefs in this matter.” Appellant also included a CD which he claims contains an audio file from his personal cell phone from which he recorded an August 27, 2010 pre-trial proceeding. Appellant further requested that the original stenographic notes from proceedings on “8/4/10, 8/26/10, 9/21/10 & 9/22/10” be provided so that “a third party stenographer could verify [the] transcript accuracy.” On March 1, 2011, this court denied his request for the stenographic notes
{¶ 5} Thereafter, on April 1, 2011, appellant filed an
{¶ 6} On May 19, 2011, appellant filed this timely motion for reconsideration, a motion for judicial notice, and a request for hearing. Appellant argues that the transcripts of proceedings for certain pre-trial conferences were not transmitted as part of the record, and that they now need to be transmitted and “corrected” based upon his “Affidavit of Material Fact.” In appellant‘s
{¶ 7}
{¶ 8} After reviewing the record, it appears that appellant, in his praecipe, only requested a partial transcript. Specifically, he wrote, “See ‘Notice: Order for Partial Transcript’ attached. Also, transcripts from pre-trial appearances are already complete.” In his attached “Notice: Order for Partial Transcript,” appellant requested the testimony of all witnesses made during his trial, all “related and resulting conversations, questions, orders, and demands made during the intercourse of each witness testimony,” the oral motions and testimony of appellant, and all responses to the oral motions made by appellant. He further requested the original stenographic records of the two-day bench trial held on September 21 and 22, 2010, and of pre-trial proceedings allegedly held on August 4, 2010, and August 26, 2010.
{¶ 9} Apparently, appellant was under the erroneous impression that transcripts for his pre-trial proceedings were already completed and would be transmitted with the record on appeal. Pursuant to
Motion for Judicial Notice
{¶ 11} Appellant wishes to have this court take judicial notice of the following: “(1) the 8/27/10 hearing was indeed an ex-parte hearing, and that (2) the CD Audio filed into this case on 2/24/2011 (hereinafter CD Audio) is (3) an admissible, (4) authentic and/or original recording of that event.”
{¶ 12}
{¶ 14}
{¶ 15} If a recording was made in the trial court of the August 27, 2010 hearing it will be transcribed in accordance with our order above. There is no provision in
Appointment of Counsel on Appeal
{¶ 16} Appellant has proceeded pro se in the lower court proceedings and, up to this point, on appeal. In CRB-10-10207, appellant was convicted of obstructing official business, a second degree misdemeanor, and sentenced to 45 days in jail, with those days suspended upon completing 45 hours of community service and six months of probation. Additionally, appellant was convicted of resisting arrest, also a second degree misdemeanor, and sentenced to 60 days in jail with those days suspended if appellant completes 45 days of community service and six months of probation.
{¶ 17} Appellant was found indigent by the trial court, and a public defender was appointed to assist appellant in his court trial. The record reflects that appellant refused the assistance of this public defender. Appellant does not have that choice on appeal.
{¶ 18} A criminal defendant “has no constitutional right to self-representation in the appellate process on direct appeal.” Martinez v. California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate Dist. (2000), 528 U.S. 152, 163, 120 S.Ct. 684, 145 L.Ed.2d 597. “Furthermore, ‘[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.’ State v. Keenan (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 133, 138, 689 N.E.2d 929, citing McKaskle v. Wiggins (1984), 465 U.S. 168, 183, 104 S.Ct. 944, 79 L.Ed.2d 122.” State v. Ferguson (2006), 108 Ohio St.3d 451, 466, 2006-Ohio-1502, ¶ 97.
{¶ 20} It is so ordered.
MOTIONS GRANTED, IN PART, AND DENIED, IN PART.
Peter M. Handwork, J.
JUDGE
Thomas J. Osowik, P.J.
Stephen A. Yarbrough, J. JUDGE
CONCUR.
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio‘s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court‘s web site at: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/?source=6.