State v. Prater
Decision Date | 31 December 1990 |
Docket Number | No. 90AP-268,90AP-268 |
Parties | The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. PRATER, Appellant. |
Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Michael Miller, Pros. Atty. and Joyce S. Anderson, Columbus, for appellee.
Randall M. Dana, Public Defender and Dory A. Sutker, Columbus, for appellant.
This is an appeal from a jury trial convicting defendant of abduction in violation of R.C. 2905.02 with a specification of a prior aggravated burglary offense. Defendant, Tony C. Prater, asserts two assignments of error:
In the first assignment of error, defendant contends that his rights under the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Section 10, Article I of the Ohio Constitution were abridged because the trial court failed to inquire into his objections with the public defender assigned to his case.
Defendant was arrested on September 21, 1989. The grand jury indicted him on October 12, 1989. His trial was scheduled for February 5, 1990. On the day of trial, just prior to bringing the jury in for voir dire, the following exchange occurred:
After the jury was impanelled, defense counsel again brought defendant's request to the attention of the court:
Defendant maintains that the court did not inquire into the basis for his complaint about assigned counsel. Defendant relies on State v. Deal (1969), 17 Ohio St.2d 17, 46 O.O.2d 154, 244 N.E.2d 742, wherein the court held in the syllabus:
Hence, the court held that the trial court had a duty to investigate a complaint concerning the effectiveness of counsel and to make its investigation on the record to provide for effective appellate review.
In State v. VanMeter (July 11, 1985), Franklin App. No. 84AP-987, unreported, 1985 WL 10073, this court reversed a conviction where, prior to commencement of trial, the defendant requested a continuance so that he might obtain new counsel. The public defender indicated to the court that he and the defendant had "fundamental differences with the type of defense that would be presented" and that defendant felt his counsel was not "looking out for his best interest." Id. at 2. We reversed because the court " * * * did not make any particular inquiry * * * as to [defendant's] beliefs regarding his counsel's representation, his lack of confidence in the quality of representation, or the like." Id.
In VanMeter, the trial court did not know that defendant met with his public defender only one day prior to the trial. Further, during opening statement by the state, the defendant appeared upset. At the close of the state's case, the public defender again stated that defendant wanted to present a defense, but desired a continuance to consult with another lawyer. Instead of inquiring about the matter, the trial court told the jury that defendant did not desire to present any defense and then charged them.
After discussing several federal cases concerning the duty to inquire, see Brown v. Craven (C.A.9, 1970), 424 F.2d 1166; Monroe v. United States (C.A.D.C.1978), 389 A.2d 811, certiorari denied (1978), 439 U.S. 1006, 99 S.Ct. 621, 58 L.Ed.2d 683; Sawicki v. Johnson (C.A.6, 1973), 475 F.2d 183, this court wrote in VanMeter:
"The court finds that the federal cases cited herein comport with the approach taken by the Supreme Court decision in Deal, supra, that, where allegations of inadequate and ineffective representation are made at pretrial, the trial court has a responsibility to conduct an inquiry sufficient to determine the scope and veracity of the allegations and to provide meaningful appellate review as well. * * * " Id. at 6-7.
This court noted that, despite the defendant's protest about fundamental differences with his counsel, the trial court did not personally address the defendant, but instead indicated "we are going to trial" several times. Id. at 7. Further, the court did not make findings of fact on the record, but instead simply said to defense counsel: "I am not going to fire you just because he doesn't you know, want you on his case." Id. After voir dire the court similarly responded: "You are not going to change my mind about anything about the way the trial is being conducted." Id.
Considering these facts, this court found that the court breached its duty to the accused. Hence, we reversed the conviction and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Ketterer
...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.2d 44 (on particular facts, "the trial court breached its duty to {¶ 140} However, the record of the December 9, 2003 heari......
-
State v. Keith
...cited by appellant, the defendant expressed his dissatisfaction with his counsel to the trial court. See, also, State v. Prater (1990), 71 Ohio App.3d 78, 593 N.E.2d 44 (defendant specifically informed the court that he did not want assigned counsel to represent him); State v. VanMeter (Jul......
-
Moore v. Haviland
...of the trial court to make an adequate and timely inquiry of his complaints, mostly relying on the Ohio state decisions of Deal and State v. Prater.152 Essentially, the first issue before the habeas court is to determine specifically what constitutional violation Moore is alleging in this g......
-
State v. Vessey
...and remanded to trial court for inquiry to determine whether defendant "had substantial complaints"); Ohio v. Prater, 71 Ohio App.3d 78, 593 N.E.2d 44, 47 (Ohio Ct.App.1990) (holding failure to inquire into complaint of counsel was reversible error and remanding for evidentiary hearing on m......