Opinion ID: 774529
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Ohio court misapplied Cronic

Text: 31 As previously discussed, the Court in Cronic identified certain situations in which the circumstances of trial are so likely to prejudice the accused that the cost of litigating their effect in a particular case is unjustified. Cronic, 466 U.S. at 658. In such situations, prejudice to the defendant will be presumed. One such situation is where the defendant is denied the presence of counsel at a critical stage of the prosecution. Cronic, 466 U.S. at 659. Another is where the circumstances surrounding the appointment of counsel are so egregious that even a fully competent lawyer is presumed to have rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance. Id. at 659-61, 104 S. Ct. 2039 (discussing the last-minute appointment of defense counsel in Powellas an example of such a case). 32 In attempting to apply Cronic to the case at bar, the Ohio Court of Appeals failed to consider whether Hunt had been denied the presence of counsel during a critical stage of the prosecution. Nor did the court of appeals look to the circumstances surrounding the appointment of Hunt's counsel to determine whether it was unlikely that even a fully competent lawyer could have provided effective assistance. Rather, in applying Cronic, the court of appeals focused on the fact that Hunt had failed to preserve his objection to the trial court's last-minute appointment of counsel. The Ohio court stated that neither Hunt nor his attorney objected to the alacrity with which the trial commenced,and further stated that there were no statements either that counsel was unprepared to represent appellant or that appellant was being denied his right to effective assistance of counsel by the proceedings. Hunt, 1996 WL 502151, at . The Ohio court's presumed-prejudice analysis under Cronic appears to have turned, therefore, on Hunt's alleged waiver of his objections in the court below. By definition, however, a per se violation of a defendant's right to effective assistance of counsel does not require the defendant to preserve the error below. See, e.g., Powell, 287 U.S. at 57-58 (holding that under the circumstances, defendants were not accorded right to counsel in any substantial sense, even though defendants did not formally object to last-minute appointment of counsel by state trial judge). Moreover, the record reflects that defense counsel did inform the court that he needed more time consult with his client. Thus, the reason relied upon by the Ohio court in rejecting Hunt's presumed-prejudice argument under Cronic is both factually inaccurate and legally irrelevant. 33