State v. Jones, 2008-P-0018 (12-31-2008)
2008-Ohio-6994 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney cannot be held in direct criminal contempt for refusing to proceed with a trial when the attorney has not been given adequate time to prepare, as forcing unprepared counsel to proceed would violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel and the attorney's ethical duties.
Facts:
- Brian Jones, a public defender, was appointed on August 15, 2007, to represent Jordan Scott on a misdemeanor assault charge.
- Scott's trial was scheduled to begin the next day, August 16, 2007.
- On the morning of the trial, Jones met with six other clients before receiving Scott's file.
- Jones was only able to meet with his new client, Scott, for twenty minutes before the case was called.
- Jones informed Judge John J. Plough that he was unprepared, had not had an opportunity to interview witnesses, and would be ineffective if forced to proceed.
- Jones requested a continuance to have more time to prepare for the trial.
- Judge Plough denied the request for a continuance and ordered the trial to commence immediately.
- Jones respectfully refused to participate in the trial, stating he could not ethically provide effective representation.
Procedural Posture:
- The Portage County Municipal Court ordered defense attorney Brian Jones to proceed with a criminal trial despite his request for a continuance due to lack of preparation.
- When Jones refused to participate, the trial court summarily found him in direct criminal contempt of court and ordered him into custody.
- A motion was filed to disqualify the trial judge, Judge Plough, from presiding over the contempt proceedings, which was denied by a judge from the Court of Common Pleas.
- A hearing on the contempt charge was held before Judge Plough.
- The trial court issued a final judgment entry finding Jones guilty of direct criminal contempt and imposing a sentence of fines, costs, and a suspended jail term.
- Jones, as the appellant, filed a timely appeal of the contempt conviction to the Ohio Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court improperly find a defense attorney in direct criminal contempt for refusing to proceed with a trial when the attorney was appointed one day prior and asserted that proceeding would constitute ineffective assistance of counsel?
Opinions:
Majority - Unidentified
Yes. A trial court improperly holds an attorney in contempt for refusing to proceed to trial under circumstances where proceeding would be unethical and violate the defendant's right to effective counsel. The trial court abused its discretion by denying the continuance, as Jones had a legitimate reason for the request, had not received prior continuances, and was placed in an impossible position. Forcing Jones to proceed would have violated his ethical duties under the Code of Professional Responsibility and his client's Sixth Amendment rights. A court cannot prioritize docket management over a defendant's fundamental right to a fair trial and effective representation, nor can it knowingly create a constitutional error with the expectation that an appellate court will remedy it later.
Dissenting - Cannon, J.
This opinion concurs with the majority's decision to reverse the contempt charge. However, it dissents from the majority's conclusion that the appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review the denial of the motion to recuse the trial judge. The dissent argues that because the appellant followed the proper statutory procedure for filing an affidavit of disqualification, the court of common pleas's decision on that matter is a reviewable final order, and the appellate court does have jurisdiction to consider whether the trial judge should have been recused.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel must take precedence over a trial court's administrative interest in controlling its docket. It provides crucial protection for defense attorneys, particularly public defenders, who refuse to participate in proceedings they believe are fundamentally unfair due to lack of preparation. The ruling establishes that an attorney's refusal to proceed under such circumstances is not contemptuous but rather an ethically mandated action to protect a client's constitutional rights. It also serves as a check on trial courts, preventing them from knowingly creating reversible error by forcing unprepared counsel to trial and relying on the appellate process as a remedy.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Jones, 2008-P-0018 (12-31-2008)