State v. Owen, Unpublished Decision (2-20-1998)
This text of State v. Owen, Unpublished Decision (2-20-1998) (State v. Owen, Unpublished Decision (2-20-1998)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
On May 20, 1997, appellant appeared for trial. Prior to trial, the trial court arraigned appellant. Appellant requested a continuance but said request was denied. The case proceeded to trial and appellant was found guilty as charged. The trial court imposed a $973.00 fine plus court costs.
Appellant filed a notice of appeal and this matter is now before this court for consideration. Assignments of error are as follows:
I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REFUSING TO GRANT DEFENDANT A CONTINUANCE ON THE DATE OF TRIAL WHEN DEFENDANT WAS ARRAIGNED IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO TRIAL AND (1) DEFENDANT FACED POSSIBLE JAIL TIME AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO COUNSEL; (2) DEFENDANT REQUESTED TO SPEAK TO AN ATTORNEY; (3) NO WAIVER OF COUNSEL OCCURRED EITHER ORALLY OR IN WRITING; AND (4) DEFENDANT SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED A CONTINUANCE TO SPEAK TO COUNSEL.
II
DEFENDANT'S CONVICTION FOR VIOLATION OF REVISED CODE §
5577.04 WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
Appellant claims the trial court erred in denying him a continence to obtain advice from counsel. We agree.
It is undisputed appellant did not appear for his arraignment and did not enter a plea until the morning of trial. Prior to trial and again at the conclusion of Deputy Kennedy's direct testimony, appellant requested a continuance to obtain advice from counsel. T. at 5, 19. Said request was denied. T. at 7, 20.
Traf.R. 8 governs procedures at arraignment. Subsection (D) (1) specifically provides as follows:
(D) Explanation of rights. Before calling upon a defendant to plead at arraignment the judge shall cause him to be informed and shall determine that defendant knows and understands:
(1) That he has a right to counsel and the right to a reasonable continuance in the proceedings to secure counsel, and, pursuant to Criminal Rule 44, the right to have counsel assigned without cost to himself if he is unable to employ counsel;
Appellant was charged with violating R.C.
Given the procedural posture sub judice, we find the trial court erred in denying appellant a continuance per Traf.R. 8 (D) (1).
Assignment of Error I is granted.
The judgment of the Lancaster Municipal Court of Fairfield County, Ohio is hereby reversed and remanded.
By Farmer, P.J., Gwin, J. and Hoffman, J. concur.
For the reasons stated in the Memorandum-Opinion on file, the judgment of the Lancaster Municipal Court of Fairfield County, Ohio is reversed and remanded to said court for trial.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State v. Owen, Unpublished Decision (2-20-1998), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-owen-unpublished-decision-2-20-1998-ohioctapp-1998.