Skip to main content

State v. Darling

Citations

  • 2017 Ohio 7603

Syllabus

Motion to disqualify right to choice of counsel Crim.R. 11(C) right to testify package deal consecutive sentences R.C. 2929.18(B)(1) present and future ability to pay. Appellant waived a challenge of the state's motion to disqualify his retained counsel in an earlier case by his guilty plea in the reindicted case. Regardless of this waiver, his retained counsel's voluntarily withdrawal did not implicate the Sixth Amendment right to choice of counsel. The trial court was not required to advise of the right to testify as it is not expressly provided for under Crim.R. 11(C). The trial court made all required findings to impose consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C), but failed to include these findings in the sentencing entry. Appellant did not object to the imposition of the mandatory fine under R.C. 2929.18(B)(1) at sentencing and thus waived such a challenge. The trial court acted within its discretion under R.C. 2947.23(A)(1) in imposing court costs regardless of appellant's financial status.

Judges: Kilbane

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

15 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

22 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.