State v. King
Decision Date | 06 June 1995 |
Docket Number | No. 93CA2206,93CA2206 |
Citation | 662 N.E.2d 389,104 Ohio App.3d 434 |
Parties | The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. KING, Appellant. |
Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Lynn Alan Grimshaw, Scioto County Prosecuting Attorney, and R. Randolph Rumble, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Jeffrey J. Hoskins, Hillsboro, for appellant. 1
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction and sentence entered by the Scioto County Common Pleas Court finding the appellant guilty of knowingly causing serious physical harm to another in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1). The appellant assigns the following errors for our review:
The following facts are pertinent to this appeal. On August 13, 1993, an indictment was returned by the Scioto County Grand Jury charging the appellant with alternative counts of felonious assault. The first count alleged that the appellant knowingly caused serious physical harm to another in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1). The second count alleged that the appellant knowingly caused physical harm to another by means of a deadly weapon in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2).
The appellant claimed that he was indigent, and he was assigned trial counsel. On November 30, 1993, a jury returned verdicts finding the appellant guilty of the first count and not guilty of the second count. The court sentenced the appellant, and this appeal follows. Additional facts will be discussed as called for in ruling on the appellant's assignments of error.
In his first assignment of error, the appellant submits that the trial court erred in failing to address his pro se motion to dismiss his trial counsel. The appellant's motion was filed with the Clerk of Courts of Scioto County on November 29, 1993, the first day of the appellant's trial. The appellant alleged in his motion that his trial counsel was not providing effective assistance because he refused to interview witnesses, refused to investigate the factual background of the case and was not preparing the case for trial. No mention of this motion, however, is made in the record by either the appellant, his trial counsel, or the trial judge.
When during trial an indigent defendant questions the effectiveness and adequacy of assigned counsel, it is the duty of the trial court to inquire into the complaint and make the inquiry part of the record. See State v. Prater (1990), 71 Ohio App.3d 78, 593 N.E.2d 44, and State v. Deal (1969), 17 Ohio St.2d 17, 46 O.O.2d 154, 244 N.E.2d 742. The inquiry may be brief and minimal, but it must be made. Prater, supra. No such inquiry appears in the record in the case sub judice.
The appellee argues that the duty of the trial judge to inquire into this motion arises only if it is brought to the judge's attention in open court. However, while it appears that the motion was not brought to the trial court's attention in open court during the trial,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Ketterer
...the duty of the trial judge to inquire into the complaint and make such inquiry a part of the record." See, also, State v. King (1995), 104 Ohio App.3d 434, 437, 662 N.E.2d 389 ("inquiry may be brief and minimal, but it must be made"); State v. Prater (1990), 71 Ohio App.3d 78, 83, 593 N.E.......
-
State v. Banks
...¶ 52. If defendant alleges facts sufficient for relief, then the trial court must inquire into the claim. State v. King, 104 Ohio App.3d 434, 437, 662 N.E.2d 389 (4th Dist.1995). The assertion of the right to self-representation must be clear and unequivocal. State v. Dean, 127 Ohio St.3d 1......
-
State v. Flesher, 2007 Ohio 4982 (Ohio App. 9/21/2007)
...adequacy of assigned counsel during trial, the court must inquire into the complaint on the record. Id; see, also State v. King (1995), 104 Ohio App.3d 434, 437, 662 N.E.2d 389. Factors to consider in reviewing a defendant's request for substitute counsel include: "`the timeliness of the mo......
-
State v. Demetrius Smith
... ... (1988), 488 U.S. 900, 109 S.Ct. 250, 102 L.Ed.2d 238. When an ... indigent defendant questions the effectiveness of assigned ... counsel, the trial court must inquire into the complaint and ... make the inquiry part of the record. State v. King ... (1995), 104 Ohio App.3d 434, 437, 662 N.E.2d 389, 390-391, ... citing State v. Prater (1990), 71 Ohio App.3d 78, ... 82, 593 N.E.2d 44, 46, and State v. Deal (1969), 17 ... Ohio St.2d 17, 244 N.E.2d 742 at syllabus. However, in order ... to necessitate such an ... ...