# State v. Glasure

> Ohio Court of Appeals · February 2, 1999 · 132 Ohio App. 3d 227

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3721430

## Case

- **Full name:** The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. GLASURE, Appellant
- **Court:** Ohio Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** February 2, 1999
- **Citations:** 132 Ohio App. 3d 227; 724 N.E.2d 1165
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Cox
- **Judges:** Vukovich, Waite, Cox
- **Cited by:** 70 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3721430

## Opinion text

Cox, Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the decision reached by the majority in this case but write separately to emphasize the tension between appellant’s failure to cooperate with the trial court and his constitutional right to counsel. The trial court in this case did “bend over backwards” to be patient and accommodate appellant. Conversely, appellant failed to attend scheduled appointments with .his second court-appointed counsel, failed to appear at a hearing regarding said appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw, and failed to complete the affidavit of indigency and
*240
financial statement as ordered by the trial court. After the trial court granted the motion to withdraw presented by appellant’s second court-appointed counsel, appellant appeared at trial unrepresented and stated on the record that he was not waiving his right to counsel.
I can certainly appreciate the trial court’s frustration over the actions of a vexatious litigant such as appellant. It appears to me that a judge must almost assume the responsibility of acting as an attorney, as well as a judge, for a litigant who has no counsel present at the time of trial, which frustrates the judicial process in itself. Notwithstanding all that the trial court did in this case to assist appellant, the law is clear and I am compelled to agree with the majority that the trial court must nonetheless adhere to the strict requirements and rights afforded a defendant by the Constitution.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3721430. Public record. Not legal advice.