Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
13 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2002–2026 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Faretta v. Californiagreen2 sentences2026Thus, whatever else may or may not be open to him on appeal, a defendant who elects to represent himself cannot thereafter complain that the quality of his own defense amounted to a denial of “effective assistance of counsel.” Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 834, fn. 46 (1975); State v. Phillips, 2019- Ohio-2930, ¶ 19 (10th Dist.). {¶28} In the instant case, while Parks was acting “with eyes open” in representing himself, after considering the record as a whole, we cannot find the trial court erred in denying him the right to represent himself. 2025See Khamsi, 2020-Ohio-1472, at ¶ 42 (1st Dist.), citing Faretta, 422 U.S. at 834, fn. 46 (A defendant who elects to represent himself cannot complain about the quality of his own defense.). | 5 | 12 |
State v. Khamsigreen2 sentences2025See Khamsi, 2020-Ohio-1472, at ¶ 42 (1st Dist.), citing Faretta, 422 U.S. at 834, fn. 46 (A defendant who elects to represent himself cannot complain about the quality of his own defense.). 2023State v. Khamsi, 2020-Ohio-1472 , 153 N.E.3d 900, ¶ 42 (1st Dist.) citing Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 834 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562, fn. 46 . | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Lechner
green
2 sentences2011In State v. Lechner, 72 Ohio St.3d 374 , 1995-Ohio-25 , 650 N.E.2d 449 , the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the denial of Lechner’s application which was solely on the basis of failing to comply with App.R. 26(B)(2)(d). 2011In State v. Lechner, 72 Ohio St.3d 374 , 1995-Ohio-25 , 650 N.E.2d 449 , the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the denial of Lechner’s application which was solely on the basis of failing to comply with App.R. 26(B)(2)(d). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Lechner
green
1 sentence2011In State v. Lechner, 72 Ohio St.3d 374 , 1995-Ohio-25 , 650 N.E.2d 449 , the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the denial of Lechner’s application which was solely on the basis of failing to comply with App.R. 26(B)(2)(d). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
McKaskle v. Wiggins
green
1 sentence2002McKaskle , supra. Further, while appellant may have confessed that he and his girlfriend were involved in a scheme to steal electronic equipment from Wal-Mart and re-sell it, the theft elements of robbery were never in dispute in the instant case. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.