[Cite as State v. Ranes, 2016-Ohio-448.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT 

PUTNAM COUNTY 

 

STATE OF OHIO, 

 CASE NO. 12-15-03 

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, 

 v. 

 O P I N I O N 

DAVID RANES, 

 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

Appeal from Putnam County Common Pleas Court 

Trial Court No. 2014 CR 63 

Judgment Affirmed 

Date of Decision: February 8, 2016 

 

APPEARANCES: 

F. Stephen Chamberlain for Appellant 

Todd C. Schroeder for Appellee 

 
Case No. 12-15-03 

- 2 - 

WILLAMOWSKI, J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, David Ranes (“Ranes”), brings this appeal from 

the judgment of the Common Pleas Court of Putnam County, Ohio, which entered 

his conviction after a jury found him guilty of one count of engaging in a pattern 

of corrupt activity, a felony of the first degree in violation of R.C. 2923.32(A)(1); 

one count of illegal manufacture of methamphetamines, a felony of the second 

degree in violation of R.C. 2925.04(A) & (C)(3)(a); and one count of illegal 

assembly or possession of chemicals for the manufacture of drugs, a felony of the 

third degree in violation of R.C. 2925.041(A) & (C). Ranes alleges that the trial 

court erred in refusing to appoint new counsel for him on the morning of the trial 

and in allowing the State to introduce evidence of his prior conviction. He further 

contends that his trial counsel was ineffective. For the reasons that follow, we 

affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

Factual and Procedural Background

{¶2} In the summer and fall of 2014, detectives of the Putnam County 

Sheriff’s Office, Multi Area Narcotics Task Force, investigated a group of 

individuals for their involvement in illegal manufacture of methamphetamine. 

The investigation led to arrests of Ranes and multiple other individuals as coconspirators. A search of a residence where Ranes had previously resided resulted 

in the discovery of precursors and other items used for the manufacture of 

methamphetamine, all of which were linked to Ranes. Additionally, records from 
Case No. 12-15-03 

- 3 - 

the national precursor log exchange (NPLEx) showed multiple purchases of 

pseudoephedrine made by Ranes and the co-conspirators. Pseudoephedrine is a 

precursor used in the manufacture of methamphetamine. 

{¶3} Ranes was indicted on November 20, 2014. He pled not guilty and 

received appointed counsel, Attorney William Kluge (“Attorney Kluge”). Several 

of the co-conspirators agreed to testify against Ranes. Prior to trial Ranes filed a 

motion in limine, requesting an order “prohibiting the introduction of evidence of 

any kind about the pattern of corrupt activity, unless it is directly related to the 

conduct of [the] Defendant, David Ranes.” (R. at 31.) 

{¶4} On the morning of the trial, February 9, 2015, Ranes orally moved for 

substitution of counsel, complaining that he was not satisfied with Attorney 

Kluge’s preparation for trial. (Tr. of Proceedings at 7, Feb. 9, 2015 (“Tr.”).) 

Attorney Kluge indicated that he was prepared to withdraw if the trial court 

accepted Ranes’s request for new counsel. (Tr. at 6-7.) He attested, however, that 

he was adequately prepared to try the case and to provide effective assistance of 

counsel to Ranes. (Tr. at 8-9.) The trial court denied Ranes’s request for new 

counsel and the case proceeded to trial with Attorney Kluge as trial counsel. 

{¶5} Before the presentation of the evidence, the trial court heard 

arguments with respect to the motion in limine. As a result of the hearing, the trial 

court excluded some of the evidence about Ranes’s other criminal activity, but 

allowed the introduction of a 2009 conviction for illegal assembly or possession of 
Case No. 12-15-03 

- 4 - 

chemicals for the manufacture of drugs, for the limited purpose allowed under 

Evid.R. 404(B), with accompanying limiting instruction. (Tr. of Proceedings at 

122, 124, Feb. 9, 2015 (“Tr.”).) 

{¶6} The jury found Ranes guilty on all three counts. (R. at 90.) After the 

trial, Ranes filed a pro se motion to set aside the verdict and set a new trial date. 

(R. at 93.) In his motion Ranes argued that his trial counsel was ineffective “[d]ue 

to his lack of preparation and time spent with defendant, his lack of knowledge of 

case and his lack of discretion in using key points brought up by defendant in 

cross examination of key witnesses.” (Id.) The trial court overruled the motion. 

(R. at 96.) Ranes was subsequently sentenced to eleven years on count one, eight 

years on count two, and thirty-six months on count three, all to be served 

consecutively. (R. at 99.) 

Ranes appeals raising three assignments of error for our review, as quoted 

below. 

Assignments of Error

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR ONE: THE TRIAL COURT 

COMMITTED AN ERROR IN NOT GRANTING THE 

DEFENDANT’S ORAL PRO SE MOTION TO REMOVE TRIAL 

COUNSEL AND APPOINT SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL THE 

MORNING OF THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE TRIAL 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR TWO: THE TRIAL COURT 

COMMITTED ERROR IN ALLOWING THE STATE TO 

INTRODUCE EVIDENCE OF A PRIOR CONVICTION TO BE 

USED IN THE STATE OF OHIO’S CASE IN CHIEF 
Case No. 12-15-03 

- 5 - 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR THREE: DEFENDANT’S TRIAL 

COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE 

First Assignment of Error—Substitution of Counsel 

{¶7} Ranes alleges that the trial court erred when it denied his request for 

new counsel on the morning of the trial. He relies on the criminal defendant’s 

right to counsel guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Ohio 

Constitution. See State v. Combs, 3d Dist. Hancock No. 5-96-15, 1996 WL 

518112, *1 (Sept. 12, 1996). 

{¶8} We have previously recognized that although a criminal defendant has 

an absolute right to counsel, there is no “absolute right” to counsel of one’s own 

choosing. Id., citing United States v. Iles, 906 F.2d 1122, 1130 (6th Cir.1990), 

and State v. Marinchek, 9 Ohio App.3d 22, 23, 457 N.E.2d 1198 (9th Dist.1983). 

Therefore, an indigent defendant does not have the right to choose his counsel. 

Thurston v. Maxwell, 3 Ohio St.2d 92, 93, 209 N.E.2d 204 (1965). In situations 

where an issue of substitution of appointed counsel arises, an indigent defendant 

must demonstrate “good cause” to warrant the change. Combs at *1. We 

recognized that good cause for substitution of counsel might be “a conflict of 

interest, a complete breakdown in communication, or an irreconcilable conflict 

which leads to an apparently unjust verdict.” Id. If the defendant demonstrates 

good cause, the trial court has a duty to inquire whether the dissatisfaction with 

counsel is justifiable and whether it requires substitution of counsel. Id. 
Case No. 12-15-03 

- 6 - 

An inquiry into whether the substitution of counsel is warranted 

serves several important goals. This procedural protection not only 

aids in determining whether “good cause” has been shown, but 

serves to ease the defendant’s distrust, to preserve the integrity of the 

trial process, and to foster confidence in the jury verdict. 

Illes at 1131. In its inquiry the trial court must balance the defendant’s preference 

as to his counsel’s choice against “the court’s interest in the integrity of the 

proceedings and the public’s interest in the proper administration of justice.” 

United States v. Mays, 69 F.3d 116, 121 (6th Cir.1995). “Attorneys cannot be 

shed at every stage of the proceeding so as to impede that orderly administration.” 

Marinchek at 23-24. 

{¶9} The decision on the defendant’s request for substitution of counsel 

rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. Combs at *1; N. Eagle, Inc. v. 

Kosas, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 92358, 2009-Ohio-4042, ¶ 32; see also State v. 

Keenan, 81 Ohio St.3d 133, 137, 1998-Ohio-459, 689 N.E.2d 929 (1998) 

(applying the same standard to the trial court’s disqualification of counsel). 

Because abuse of discretion connotes more than an error in judgment, we will not 

substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. Keenan at 137, citing State v. 

Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157, 404 N.E.2d 144 (1980). Therefore, we will only 

reverse the trial court’s decision if “the trial court’s attitude [was] unreasonable, 

arbitrary, or unconscionable.” Id. “A decision is unreasonable if there is no sound 

reasoning process that would support the decision.” State v. Britton, 3d Dist. 

Marion No. 9-99-81, 2000-Ohio-1881, 2000 WL 765805, *4. 
Case No. 12-15-03 

- 7 - 

{¶10} In the instant case, Ranes complains that the trial court did not 

sufficiently inquire into his dissatisfaction with Attorney Kluge. Our review of the 

transcript does not support Ranes’s contention. The transcript indicates that the 

trial court gave Ranes an opportunity to explain the reasons for his dissatisfaction 

with his counsel. Ranes complained that Attorney Kluge only spent an hour with 

him in the past three months and did not go over all the available evidence with 

him. (Tr. at 7.) Ranes further complained that his attorney did not file any of the 

motions or subpoenas that Ranes requested. (Id.) Ranes alleged that his attorney 

had been too busy with other cases and his case was not getting sufficient 

attention. (Id.) Based on these allegations, the trial court inquired further, 

attempting to determine what motions Attorney Kluge failed to file on Ranes 

behalf. Ranes responded that he had asked for a motion to suppress and one other 

motion, which he could not remember at the time. (Tr. at 7-8.) The trial court 

then directed its inquiry to Attorney Kluge, asking whether he could provide 

effective assistance of counsel to Ranes and whether he had spent adequate time 

with his client to prepare for trial. (Tr. at 8-9.) Attorney Kluge responded in the 

affirmative to both questions. (Id.) 

{¶11} Ranes’s allegations during the colloquy failed to show “a conflict of 

interest, a complete breakdown in communication, or an irreconcilable conflict 

which leads to an apparently unjust verdict.” Combs, 3d Dist. Hancock No. 5-96-

15, 1996 WL 518112, at *1. Indeed, Ranes’s statements to the trial court indicated 
Case No. 12-15-03 

- 8 - 

that he had confidence in Attorney Kluge, but was dissatisfied with the amount of 

“face time” spent in preparation of trial. (Tr. at 8.) Ranes did not demonstrate, 

however, that the amount of time Attorney Kluge spent with him was too short for 

adequate trial preparation. He did not provide any evidence to show that Attorney 

Kluge was not prepared to provide effective assistance during his trial. 

Conversely, the record shows that Attorney Kluge engaged in discovery, filed and 

argued motions, and zealously represented his client at trial. He evaluated the 

issues for suppression and determined that Ranes made no statements to law 

enforcement. (Tr. at 123.) He further determined that Ranes lacked standing to 

raise many of the issues with respect to searches and seizures in the case and 

therefore, filing the motions to suppress requested by Ranes would be futile. (Id.) 

{¶12} The inquiry conducted by the trial court was sufficient to satisfy the 

goal of determining whether Ranes demonstrated good cause for substitution of 

counsel. Due to Ranes’s failure to demonstrate good cause for substitution of 

counsel on the day of the trial, the trial court’s denial of his request was not an 

abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we overrule the first assignment of error. 

Third Assignment of Error—Ineffective Assistance of Counsel 

{¶13} We take the third assignment of error out of order due to the nature 

of allegations being similar to those contained in the first assignment of error. 

Ranes contends that his trial counsel was ineffective because he “had spent as little 

as one hour prior to commencement of the trial with him.” (App’t Br. at 14.) 
Case No. 12-15-03 

- 9 - 

Furthermore, Ranes complains that his counsel “failed to present any substantial 

statement in mitigation of sentence.” (Id.) No prejudice is claimed in this 

assignment of error. 

{¶14} In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a 

criminal defendant must first show that the counsel’s performance was deficient in 

that it fell “below an objective standard of reasonable representation.” State v. 

Keith, 79 Ohio St.3d 514, 534, 684 N.E.2d 47 (1997). Second, the defendant must 

show “that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense so as to deprive the 

defendant of a fair trial.” Id., citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 

104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). In order to demonstrate prejudice, the 

defendant must prove a reasonable probability that the result of the trial would 

have been different but for his or her counsel’s errors. Id. 

{¶15} Because Ranes does not allege or demonstrate any prejudice, he fails 

to sustain his burden of establishing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. 

See State v. Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d 377, 2006-Ohio-6679, 860 N.E.2d 77, ¶ 62; 

State v. Robinson, 108 Ohio App.3d 428, 431, 670 N.E.2d 1077 (3d Dist.1996). 

Accordingly, we overrule the third assignment of error. 

Second Assignment of Error—Other Acts Evidence

{¶16} The second assignment of error challenges admissibility of the 

evidence. In order for evidence to be admissible it must be relevant. Evid. R. 402. 

“ ‘Relevant evidence’ means evidence having any tendency to make the existence 
Case No. 12-15-03 

- 10 - 

of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable 

or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” Evid. R. 401. Generally, 

“[a]ll relevant evidence is admissible.” Evid. R. 402. This general principle has 

several exceptions, which are encompassed in Evid.R. 402, 403, and 404. State v. 

Morris, 132 Ohio St.3d 337, 2012-Ohio-2407, 972 N.E.2d 528, ¶ 11-12. As 

applicable to this appeal, Evid.R. 404(B) provides, in pertinent part, 

Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove 

the character of a person in order to show action in conformity 

therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such 

as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, 

knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. 

Ohio Evid. R. 404. The Ohio Supreme Court explained this rule as follows: 

Evid.R. 404 codifies the common law with respect to evidence of 

other acts of wrongdoing. State v. Lowe, 69 Ohio St.3d 527, 530, 

634 N.E.2d 616 (1994). The rule contemplates acts that may or may 

not be similar to the crime at issue. State v. Broom, 40 Ohio St.3d 

277, 282, 533 N.E.2d 682 (1988). If the other act is offered for some 

relevant purpose other than to show character and propensity to 

commit crime, such as one of the purposes in the listing, the other 

act may be admissible. Id. Another consideration permitting the 

admission of certain other-acts evidence is whether the other acts 

“form part of the immediate background of the alleged act which 

forms the foundation of the crime charged in the indictment” and are 

“inextricably related” to the crime. State v. Curry, 43 Ohio St.2d 66, 

73, 330 N.E.2d 720 (1975). See also Broom at 282, 533 N.E.2d 682. 

Morris at ¶ 13. Therefore, although Evid.R. 404(B) “precludes admission of 

evidence of crimes, wrongs, or acts offered to prove the character of an accused to 

demonstrate conforming conduct, * * * it affords the trial court discretion to admit 

other acts evidence for any other purpose.” State v. Williams, 134 Ohio St.3d 521, 
Case No. 12-15-03 

- 11 - 

2012-Ohio-5695, 983 N.E.2d 1278, ¶ 2 (2012). The Supreme Court noted that the 

discretion afforded by Evid.R. 404(B) to the trial court is “broad.” Id. at ¶ 17. 

{¶17} The basis of this assignment of error is Ranes’s 2009 conviction 

from Paulding County for illegal assembly or possession of chemicals for the 

manufacture of drugs, a felony of the third degree in violation of R.C. 

2925.041(A). (See State’s Ex. 19.) Through his motion in limine Ranes argued 

that evidence of this prior conviction was highly prejudicial and that the State 

should be precluded from introducing it at trial. (R. at 31; Tr. at 116-117, 119-

120.) At the hearing the State explained that it intended to show that certain 

materials, such as pseudoephedrine and other common household items, were 

purchased and assembled by Ranes. Although these materials could normally be 

used for innocent purposes, they could be used for illegal manufacture of 

methamphetamine. (Tr. at 118.) The State intended to use the evidence of prior 

conviction to prove that Ranes engaged in purchases and assembly of the 

commonly used and innocent supplies with an illegal intent of manufacturing 

drugs. (Id.) The State additionally indicated that the evidence had the tendency to 

establish opportunity, preparation, knowledge, “absence of mistake or accident in 

the purchase of the various materials needed for the manufacture of meth,” and 

modus operandi, because “the process used in the ‘09 case was the same process 

used in this case.” (Tr. at 118-119.) 
Case No. 12-15-03 

- 12 - 

{¶18} On appeal Ranes asserts that allowing the evidence was prejudicial. 

In particular, he argues that the evidence had little probative value and therefore, 

its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, 

and thus, it required exclusion under Evid.R. 403(A). We must emphasize that in 

order to warrant exclusion of evidence, its probative value must be “substantially

outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, of confusion of the issues, or of 

misleading the jury.” (Emphasis added.) Evid. R. 403(A). As the Ohio Supreme 

Court explained: 

“ ‘Exclusion on the basis of unfair prejudice involves more than a 

balance of mere prejudice. If unfair prejudice simply meant 

prejudice, anything adverse to a litigant’s case would be excludable 

under Rule 403. Emphasis must be placed on the word “unfair.” 

Unfair prejudice is that quality of evidence which might result in an 

improper basis for a jury decision. Consequently, if the evidence 

arouses the jury’s emotional sympathies, evokes a sense of horror, or 

appeals to an instinct to punish, the evidence may be unfairly 

prejudicial. Usually, although not always, unfairly prejudicial 

evidence appeals to the jury’s emotions rather than intellect.’ ” 

 

State v. Crotts, 104 Ohio St.3d 432, 2004-Ohio-6550, 820 N.E.2d 302, ¶ 24 

(2004), quoting Oberlin v. Akron Gen. Med. Ctr., 91 Ohio St.3d 169, 172, 2001-

Ohio-248, 743 N.E.2d 890 (2001). 

{¶19} Nothing in the argument on appeal supports Ranes’s contention that 

the probative value of the evidence at issue was substantially outweighed by the 

danger of unfair prejudice. While Ranes complains about prejudice from the 

admission of the evidence, he fails to point out how the evidence resulted in an 
Case No. 12-15-03 

- 13 - 

improper basis for the jury’s decision in this case. Ranes does not demonstrate 

that the limited evidence proffered by the State did anything to arouse the jury’s 

emotional sympathies, evoke a sense of horror, or appeal to an instinct to punish, 

as opposed to simply showing the fact that Ranes was previously convicted of 

illegal assembly or possession of chemicals for the manufacture of 

methamphetamine. 

{¶20} This evidence had a tendency to make more probable the fact that 

Ranes had the criminal intent when purchasing and collecting items such as 

pseudoephedrine, and that he had the knowledge, opportunity, or preparation to 

manufacture methamphetamine. Thus, the testimony proffered by the State was 

relevant and fell within the permissible purposes under Evid.R. 404(B). 

Furthermore, its probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of 

unfair prejudice. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in 

denying the motion in limine. 

{¶21} Ranes also complains about the method in which the State presented 

the evidence of the 2009 conviction at trial. A review of the record shows that the 

evidence of the 2009 conviction was introduced through the testimony of Ranes’s 

probation officer, Mike Speice (“Officer Speice”). Officer Speice testified that in 

December 2008, he conducted a home visit at Ranes’s residence and observed 

“drug paraphernalia within open sight.” (Tr. at 283.) He testified that 
Case No. 12-15-03 

- 14 - 

subsequently Ranes was convicted of illegal assembly or possession of chemicals 

for the manufacture of methamphetamine. (Tr. at 283-284.) 

{¶22} Ranes complains that this testimony did not serve to show 

knowledge, identity, or lack of mistake, but rather, it was “a clear attempt to show 

a propensity on the part of the defendant to commit crimes of this type.” (App’t 

Br. at 12.) Ranes, however, did not object during trial to this limited testimony by 

the State and did not ask for an exclusion of the evidence on the basis that it failed 

to serve the intended evidentiary purpose. Therefore, he forfeited this issue for the 

purpose of the current appeal. See State v. Slagle, 65 Ohio St.3d 597, 604, 605 

N.E.2d 916 (1992) (“As a general rule an appellate court will not consider an 

alleged error that the complaining party did not bring to the trial court’s attention 

at the time the alleged error is said to have occurred. This rule is a product of our 

adversarial system of justice. ‘Its purpose is practical: to prevent the defensive trial 

tactic of remaining silent on a fatal error during trial with the expectation of 

demanding a reversal on appeal if the verdict is guilty.’ ”), quoting State v. Craft, 

52 Ohio App.2d 1, 4, 367 N.E.2d 1221 (1st Dist.1977). 

{¶23} Furthermore, the trial court gave limiting instructions to the jury, 

stating, 

Evidence was received about the commission of a past crime of the 

defendant of illegal assembly or possession of chemicals for the 

manufacture of drugs. That evidence was received only for a limited 

purpose. It was not received, and you may not consider it, to prove 

the character of the defendant in order to show that he acted in 
Case No. 12-15-03 

- 15 - 

conformity with that character. * * * you may consider that evidence 

only for the purpose of deciding whether it proves his intent or 

knowledge of circumstances surrounding the offense charged in 

Count Three in this trial. It may not be considered for any purpose 

relating to Count One and Two. 

(Tr. at 566.) In Williams, 134 Ohio St.3d 521, 2012-Ohio-5695, 983 N.E.2d 1278, 

at ¶ 24, the Ohio Supreme Court held that where the trial court instructed the jury 

that the evidence could not be used for impermissible propensity findings, the 

defendant was not unduly prejudiced.

{¶24} For the foregoing reasons, we overrule the second assignment of 

error. 

Conclusion

{¶25} Having reviewed the arguments, the briefs, and the record in this 

case, we find no error prejudicial to Appellant in the particulars assigned and 

argued. The judgment of the Common Pleas Court of Putnam County, Ohio is 

therefore affirmed. 

Judgment Affirmed 

SHAW, P.J. and PRESTON, J., concur. 

/hls