Welcome to The Briefcase

Commentary and analysis of Ohio criminal law and whatever else comes to mind, served with a dash of snark.  Continue Reading »

×

June 27, 2006

You're representing a client in a felony domestic violence case, which means that he had a prior misdemeanor for the same crime.  You learn that he didn't have a lawyer when he pled to the misdemeanor.  Can the prior conviction still be used to enhance the felony charge?

As in most everything else in the law, it depends, but there's a nice recent case out of the 5th District -- State v. Mack -- which tackles that issue.  In Mack, the state introduced the journal entry from the municipal court, as well as a transcript of the plea hearing there.  The transcript indicated that the court explained the defendant's rights to him, then asked him to sign a form.  The form was not in the record, though, and the appellate court held that the record failed "to affirmatively demonstrate that appellant waived his right to counsel," and thus "the plea was uncounseled and the right to counsel was not waived."  The court dismissed the specification and remanded the case for resentencing on a misdemeanor.

It's a good result for defense attorneys, and there are some good cases out of the 8th District, including this one, where the court held that the municipal court's solitary inquiry -- "is it your intention today to proceed without a lawyer?" -- wasn't sufficient to show that defendant "fully understood and relinquished that right." 

There are some pitfalls to beware of.  The burden is on the defendant to show that the misdemeanor conviction was uncounseled, but that's just a burden of production; once he meets that, which can be done simply by introducing an affidavit stating that he didn't knowingly waive counsel, the burden of proof shifts to the state to prove that there was a knowing and voluntary waiver of the right.  Also, even if the misdemeanor defendant didn't validly waive counsel, there's no constitutional violation if he wasn't incarcerated, as the 8th District notes here.

Finally, keep in mind that strict compliance with the rules requiring waivers to be recorded isn't necessary, as this 8th District decision indicates.  The bottom line is that if there's a signed waiver in the municipal court file, that's probably going to be enough.

Search

Recent Entries

  • April 26, 2017
    MIA
    Like Mark Twain, rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated. Except I am pretty sure he's actually dead, while I am not, and for that matter, nobody's spreading rumors that I am. Great lead, huh? The nice thing about...
  • April 20, 2017
    The Supreme Court takes a look at the trial tax
    And you thought this was the week you only had to worry about income taxes
  • April 18, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Remembering Warren Zevon, and the Fourth Amendment lives
  • April 17, 2017
    Case Update
    Structural error, prejudice, and police run amok.
  • April 13, 2017
    Some arguments on sentencing
    Why oral arguments can be fun, even when they're not yours
  • April 12, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Oh fun: declarations against interest v. non-hearsay. Also, the difference between not guilty and innocent, and Ohio's statute penalizing the refusal to take chemical test in a DUI case goes bye-bye
  • April 11, 2017
    Case Update
    Filibusters, and appellate cases on all the ways lawyers can screw up.
  • April 7, 2017
    Change of course
    A new approach in my client-attorney relationships
  • April 4, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    A true rocket docket, and Anthony Sowell pops up again
  • April 3, 2017
    Case Update
    Free merchant speech, an argument on Brady, another look at Creech