Legal Opinion

State v. Reese

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 10, 2005No. 2004-0285PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtO’Connor, J.

{¶ 1} We are asked to consider whether strict compliance with R.C. 2945.05 requires a trial court to impose counsel upon a pro se defendant who has already waived his right to counsel and wishes to further waive his right to a jury trial. For the following reasons, we find that strict compliance with R.C. 2945.05 is accomplished by establishing that a pro se defendant had an opportunity to consult with counsel at any time prior to waiving his right to a jury trial, but that actual consultation need not occur, and that appointment of counsel for a pro se defendant is not mandatory under the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Faretta v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  2. State v. PlessOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  3. State v. TateOhio Supreme Court · 1979

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. State v. GoreSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2008
  2. State v. Pankey, 07 Ma 2 (6-17-2008)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2008
  3. State v. BentleyOhio Court of Appeals · 2022
  4. State ex rel. Reese v. LoganOhio Court of Appeals · 2019
  5. State v. BarrOhio Court of Appeals · 2010

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API