State v. Campbell

• Decision Date: 01 June 2000
• Docket Number: 14-98-57
• Citation: 90 Ohio St. 3d 320,738 N.E.2d 1178
• Parties: STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE v. FRANKLIN CAMPBELL, SR. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

[1]
[2]	STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE; v.; FRANKLIN CAMPBELL, SR. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
[3]	CASE NUMBER 14-98-57
[4]	Ohio Court of Appeals
[5]	June 01, 2008
[6]	Attorneys: Lou Friscoe Attorney at Law Reg. #0031812 518 North Park Street Columbus, OH 43215 For Appellant. R. Larry Schneider Prosecuting Attorney Reg. #00023148 David W. Phillips, III Reg. #0019966 233 West Sixth Street Marysville, OH 43040 For Appellee.
[7]	The opinion of the court was delivered by: Bryant, P.j.
[8]	OPINION
[9]	CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Criminal Appeal from Municipal Court.
[10]	JUDGMENT: Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
[11]	Franklin Campbell, Sr. appeals from the judgment entered in the Marysville Municipal Court, Union County, Ohio denying his motion for a new trial.
[12]	On November 23, 1998, Campbell was tried to the bench without the assistance of counsel. Campbell was found guilty of committing his third OMVI *fn1 offense within 6 years in violation of R.C. § 4511.19(A)(1) and R.C. § 4511.99(A)(3)(a). Campbell was sentenced to serve 365 days in jail, with 30 days mandatory. The court did suspend 150 days of Campbell's jail term and placed Campbell on probation for five years. In addition, Campbell's operator's license was suspended for 10 years and Campbell was fined $2,500. On November 30, 1998, Campbell filed a motion for a new trial. Therein, Campbell, claimed that the trial court's refusal to appoint counsel for him before he was tried on the charge that he committed a third OMVI offense within six years, was an irregularity in the proceedings that denied him a fair trial. On December 16, 1998, the trial court denied Campbell's motion for a new trial. Campbell appeals from that judgment and raises one assignment of error that states:
[13]	"The trial court erred in denying Appellant's right to counsel, in requiring appellant to proceed to trial without counsel, and in overruling appellant's motion for a new trial."
[14]	Campbell's assignment of error alleges that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for a new trial because Campbell was tried without the assistance of counsel. The standard of review over whether a trial court erred when denying a motion for new trial is whether the trial court abused its discretion when entering such judgment. State v. Schiebel (1990), 55 Ohio St.3d 71, 76, 567 N.E.2d 54, paragraph one of the syllabus. The grounds for a new trial are set forth in Crim. R. 33(A)(1) - (6) which states in pertinent part:
[15]	"(A) A new trial may be granted on motion of the defendant for any of the following causes affecting materially his substantial rights:"
[16]	"(1) Irregularity in the proceedings, or in any order or ruling of the court, or abuse of discretion by the court, because of which the defendant was prevented from having a fair trial."
[17]	Campbell argues that the trial court's failure to comply with Crim. R. 44(C) was the irregularity in the proceedings that denied him a fair trial. Crim. R. 44 provides:
[18]	"(A) Counsel in serious offenses. Where a defendant charged with a serious offense is unable to obtain counsel, counsel shall be assigned to represent him at every stage of the proceedings from his initial appearance before a court through appeal as of right, unless the defendant, after being fully advised of his right to assigned counsel, knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waives his right to counsel."
[19]	"(B) Counsel in petty offenses. Where a defendant

...