State v. Jordan

Citations

• 2022 Ohio 2033

Syllabus

The trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to appoint substitute counsel for appellant as there was not a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship of such magnitude as to jeopardize his right to effective assistance of counsel. Appellant's alleged requests for new counsel would best be characterized as vague, general criticisms. When appellant did provide some specific grievance the trial court dutifully inquired into the issue. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion to continue the trial in order for him to proceed pro se as his right to self-representation was never properly invoked. The trial court did not abuse its discretion accepting that appellant's plea was made in an intelligent, knowing, and voluntary manner. Judgment affirmed.