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

  • August 15, 2017
    Summer Break
    Got a bunch of stuff to do over the next couple weeks, and with the slowdown in the courts, it's a good time to take a break. I'll be back here on August 28. See you then....
  • August 11, 2017
    Friday Musings
    Drug trafficking, ADA lawsuit abuse, and e-filing
  • August 10, 2017
    Case Update
    Waiting on SCOTUS; two Ohio Supreme Court decisions
  • August 7, 2017
    Two on allied offenses
    A look at the 8th District's latest decisions on allied offenses
  • August 3, 2017
    Thursday Ruminations
    Computerized sentencing, lawyer ads, and songs from the past
  • August 1, 2017
    8th District Roundup
    One thing that doing this blog has taught me is how much the law changes. The US Supreme Court's decisions in Blakely v. Washington and Crawford v. Washington have dramatically altered the right to jury trial and confrontation, respectively. The...
  • July 28, 2017
    Friday Roundup
    The better part of discretion
  • July 26, 2017
    Supreme Court Recap - 2016 Term
    My annual review of the Supreme Court decisions from the past term
  • July 24, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Some things we knew, some things we didn't
  • July 21, 2017
    Friday Roundup
    Computers and sex offenders, civil forfeiture, and phrases that should be put out to pasture