State v. Martin

• Decision Date: 27 October 2004
• Docket Number: Case No. 2003-0929.
• Citation: 103 Ohio St.3d 385,816 NE 2d 227
• Parties: The State of Ohio, Appellant, v. Martin, Appellee.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

103 Ohio St.3d 385

2004-Ohio-5471

816 NE 2d 227

2004-Ohio-5471

The State of Ohio, Appellant, v. Martin, Appellee.

Case No. 2003-0929.

In the Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted April 14, 2004.

Decided October 27, 2004.

LUNDBERG STRATTON, J.

{¶1} We are asked to decide what constitutes sufficient waiver of the accused's right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Section 10, Article I of the Ohio Constitution. In this case, because we find that the accused essentially proceeded pro se, without being sufficiently warned of the dangers of self-representation and without properly waiving his right to counsel, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

{¶2} In 2001, the Cuyahoga County Grand Jury returned a ten-count indictment against defendant-appellee, Kyle Martin, charging him with attempted aggravated murder, kidnapping, three counts of conspiracy to commit aggravated murder, two counts of tampering with evidence, obstructing justice, complicity to commit aggravated murder, and tampering with records. Due to Martin's indigency, the trial court appointed counsel, David L. Grant. About six weeks later at a pretrial conference, Grant withdrew due to irreconcilable differences with Martin and scheduling problems.

{¶3} At a hearing on Grant's motion to withdraw as counsel, Martin indicated that he had filed "motions for respective counsel and co-counsel." When asked to clarify the meaning of the motion, Martin stated, "I filed a motion for co-counsel whereas I can do part of my representation on my own with the assistance of counsel."

{¶4} "THE COURT: Are you making a request to represent yourself?

{¶5} "THE DEFENDANT: Co-counsel, with the assistance of —

{¶6} "THE COURT: If you want to represent yourself, you can.

{¶7} "THE DEFENDANT: I want to be a part of that defense. I don't want to be assigned."

{¶8} The court responded that it was going to appoint a public defender to represent Martin and granted David Grant's motion to withdraw.

{¶9} At a later hearing regarding speedy trial issues, the trial court inquired of the two public defenders what discussions had taken place with Martin regarding his legal representation. Counsel Darin Thompson stated that it was his understanding that Martin would "actively participate at least to the extent of cocounsel if not taking over the matter himself." The court then asked Martin, "Is it your intention, Mr. Martin, then to act as your own lawyer?" Martin responded, "No, it is not, but that's my intention to participate as to doing all that I can to protect my rights as a citizen. My Constitutional rights and to every right that I have. Okay, that is what I'm doing. I want to make sure that I am assured a fair trial. I want to make sure that motions, defense motions, proper defense motions are filed.

{¶10} "* * *

{¶11} "I don't want to go in there pretending that I'm Perry Mason and I'm not. I do need the support. I'm not all-knowing with the law but I do know enough to know what kind of motion I want to file and what kind of motion does what, and I'm familiar — I will just say that."

{¶12} After counsel indicated that he found the situation to be awkward because he would not be in control of the case, the trial court told Martin, "You're putting these lawyers in a position where it doesn't appear that you're going to listen to them. If they suggest to you that, for example, a motion be withdrawn, or that a motion isn't appropriate, whether the motion might raise some issues that, you know, for tactical or strategic reasons are not to be raised in the case. So it sounds like you want to be your own attorney, sir?" Martin replied, "That's not what I'm asking of the court."

{¶13} The trial court noted, "It is awkward to have both the lawyer and the client filing motions, arguing. It's just very difficult to do, and I think it creates all kinds of ethical issues for lawyers, some of which Mr. Grant indicated arose during his representation, although he didn't discuss them with me." Ultimately, the court reserved judgment on the representation issue until another pretrial conference.

{¶14} At the next pretrial conference, when asked about the nature of the representation and the relationship between counsel and Martin, counsel stated: "Martin does wish to maintain a great deal of control as to the direction of the defense, that is, the defendant does himself. We have talked about what our role would be, what we perceive. We come sic to some loggerheads as to whether or not we would proceed as I may advise him, and he has maintained consistently that he wants to run the show basically." The trial court asked Martin, "Is that pretty accurate?" Martin replied, "No, it is not. * * * I have never made it known I want to run the show. I would like some control what's going on being I have more information involving the case then sic any other parties involved in the case. I've made several suggestions which were shot down by defense by way of an evidentiary hearing. I asked for a suppression hearing. I asked for an evidentiary hearing. I asked for several different avenues of defense which were totally shot down."

{¶15} The trial court stated: "Well, it sounds like you have disagreements and you want to run the case in a particular fashion and they're not agreeing with you on that and so you have a right to represent yourself, and in fact that's what I'm going to do is I'm going to permit you to represent yourself. Now I'll let counsel sit with you during the proceedings, and when you need their advice, you ask them for their advice but you're going to run your own defense because that's apparently what you're doing.

{¶16} "I find that you are a competent individual. You are articulate. You're able to address different aspects of this case. I would caution you against abandoning your lawyers but that's your choice. You will be free to represent yourself in this case. What I'm not going to have is your lawyers saying one thing and you saying another. That's not going to be helpful for the process and it certainly won't be helpful in the conduct of your trial in front of a jury, so you can be your own lawyer and do whatever you think is appropriate in representing yourself.

{¶17} "Now having said that I'm going to treat you like a lawyer. That is, I'm not going to give you any greater leeway because you're representing yourself then sic I would to a lawyer. If you make an objection and it's inappropriate, it will be overruled. If you file something that's inappropriate, I'll deal with it in that way. You'll have counsel with you during trial and during the balance of the proceedings. If you ask them for advice on an issue, they can give it to you, but they may make suggestions to you if they'd like but the fact of the matter is you're going to represent yourself which is apparently what you want to do although you don't want to say it. That's apparently what you want to do."

{¶18} Martin never signed a written waiver of his right to counsel. {¶19} Prior to trial, the state dismissed the charges of tampering with evidence and tampering with records. In addition, the charge of conspiracy to commit aggravated murder was dismissed at the close of the state's case. At trial, Martin made his own opening and closing statements. He himself conducted all examination and cross-examination of witnesses (other than himself). He filed a successful motion to dismiss the count of conspiracy to commit murder.

{¶20} The jury returned a verdict of not guilty of attempted aggravated murder, not guilty of the lesser included offense of attempted murder, and guilty of kidnapping. On appeal, the Eighth District Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded for retrial. The court held that Martin was inadequately advised about the perils of self-representation and that he was not advised at all about the charges he faced, the potential penalties, or his available defenses. In addition, the court held that the absence of a written waiver compelled reversal, especially considering that Martin never really made an affirmative choice to represent himself but rather chose what he thought to be the lesser of two evils in representing himself. A motion for stay of the court of appeals' judgment was granted pending the outcome of this case. State v. Martin, 100 Ohio St.3d 1468, 2003-Ohio-5772, 798 N.E.2d 404.

{¶21} This cause is now before us upon our acceptance of a discretionary appeal.

Self-Representation

{¶22} The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall * * * have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." Similarly, the Ohio Constitution provides: "In any trial, in any court, the party accused shall be allowed to appear and defend in person and with counsel." Section 10, Article I, Ohio Constitution.

{¶23} But the United States Supreme Court has also recognized that the Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel implicitly embodies a "correlative right to dispense with a lawyer's help." Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann (1942), 317 U.S. 269, 279, 63 S.Ct. 236, 87 L.Ed. 268. The court clarified this right to proceed without counsel in the landmark case of Faretta v. California (1975), 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562. "Although not stated in the Amendment in so many words, the right to self-representation — to make one's own defense personally — is thus necessarily implied by the structure of the Amendment. The right to defend is given directly to the accused; for it is he who suffers the consequences if the defense fails." (Footnote omitted.) Id. at 819-820, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562.

{¶24} This court, too, has concluded that "a defendant in a state criminal trial has an independent constitutional right of self-representation and * * * may proceed to defend himself without counsel when he voluntarily, and knowingly and...