holding that the right to counsel was violated when the trial court gave defendant the choice of continuing trial with appointed counsel whom defendant did not trust or proceeding pro se, when record did not indicate that defendant’s request for other counsel was for purposes of delay or was not in good faith
How later courts described this case
- holding that the right to counsel was violated when the trial court gave defendant the choice of continuing trial with appointed counsel whom defendant did not trust or proceeding pro se, when record did not indicate that defendant’s request for other counsel was for purposes of delay or was not in good faith
- finding "possession may be established where the defendant occupies the premises with others but the drugs are found in the defendant's living area and in plain view throughout the apartment" and "readily useable drugs in close proximity to an accused may constitute sufficient circumstantial evidence to support a finding of constructive possession."
- stating that a defendant is not entitled to a new attorney unless he establishes good cause in the form of a conflict of interest, an irreconcilable conflict, or a complete breakdown of communication
- holding that readily usable drugs found in close proximity to defendant can establish constructive possession
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Nahra, J.,
concurring. I also concur except as to the disposition of Assignment of Error No. II. In my view, R.C. 2945.37 is constitutional.