Court Opinion

ID: 9389106
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-24 17:06:26.719976+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:25.203606
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Miller, 2023-Ohio-1330.]

                       IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                           THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                               WYANDOT COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,
                                                           CASE NO. 16-22-09
       PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

       v.

KATHLEEN M. MILLER,                                        OPINION

       DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

                 Appeal from Wyandot County Common Pleas Court
                            Trial Court No. 22-CR-0110

                                       Judgment Affirmed

                              Date of Decision: April 24, 2023

APPEARANCES:

        Howard A. Elliott for Appellant

        Allison M. Kesler for Appellee
Case No. 16-22-09

WILLAMOWSKI, J.

       {¶1} Defendant-appellant Kathleen M. Miller (“Miller”) appeals the

judgment of the Wyandot County Court of Common Pleas, alleging that the trial

court erred by allowing an unlicensed attorney to represent her. For the reasons set

forth below, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

                           Facts and Procedural History

       {¶2} On September 14, 2022, Miller was indicted on one count of tampering

with evidence. Doc. 1. The trial court appointed Adam C. Stone (“Stone”) to

represent Miller. Doc. 9. On October 25, 2022, Stone filed a motion to withdraw

as Miller’s counsel. Doc. 16. In this motion, Stone stated that he had submitted an

application to resign his license to practice law to the Ohio Supreme Court on

October 14, 2022 and that, “pending acceptance of that application by the Ohio

Supreme Court,” he would no longer be authorized to practice law. Doc. 16. On

November 3, 2022, Miller entered a plea of guilty to the charge against her and was

then sentenced. Doc. 18. At this hearing, Stone represented Miller. Doc. 18-19.

On November 8, 2022, the trial court issued its judgment entry of sentencing. Doc.

19. On November 14, 2022, the trial court granted Stone’s motion to withdraw.

Doc. 20.

                                Assignment of Error

       {¶3} Miller filed her notice of appeal on December 5, 2022. Doc. 24. On

appeal, she raises the following assignment of error:

                                         -2-
Case No. 16-22-09

        The Counsel of record for the Defendant prior to the sentencing
        hearing, filed a motion for leave to withdraw with the Court
        reflecting a date prior to such sentencing hearing, formally
        withdrawing his license to practice law in the State of Ohio and
        submitted an application to the Supreme Court to do so before the
        time of the sentencing hearing, and it was error for the Court to
        fail to address the Defendant’s representation and appoint
        substitute Counsel.

                                   Legal Standard

        {¶4} “An appellate court is to review a trial court’s orders regarding the

discharge or withdrawal of a criminal defense attorney under an abuse of discretion

standard.” State v. Ortega, 3d Dist. Hancock No. 5-16-17, 2017-Ohio-239, ¶ 10.

“An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment.” State v. Sullivan, 2017-

Ohio-8937, 102 N.E.3d 86, ¶ 20 (3d Dist.). “Rather, an abuse of discretion is present

where the trial court’s decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, or capricious.” State v.

Howton, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-16-35, 2017-Ohio-4349, ¶ 23.

                                   Legal Analysis

        {¶5} Miller argues that, because Stone had submitted an application to resign

his law license, the trial court erred by allowing Stone to continue to represent her

in this case after he had filed his motion to withdraw as counsel. However, the

record in this case indicates only that Stone had submitted an application to resign

his law license prior to Miller’s change of plea hearing. The record contains no

indication that Stone’s application to resign had been accepted by the Ohio Supreme

Court and that he, therefore, did not have a law license at any time relevant to this

case.
                                         -3-
Case No. 16-22-09

       {¶6} Further, on January 18, 2023, the Ohio Supreme Court issued a decision

on Stone’s application to resign. In re Resignation of Stone, --- Ohio St.3d ---, 2023-

Ohio-129, --- N.E.3d ---, ¶ 1. In this decision, the Ohio Supreme Court “ordered *

* * that from and after this date all rights and privileges extended to respondent to

practice law in the state of Ohio be withdrawn.” (Emphasis added.) Id. at ¶ 3. This

order also directed Stone to “[n]otify all clients being represented in pending matters

* * * of [his] resignation and consequent disqualification to act as an attorney after

the effective date of this order.” Id. at ¶ 10. Thus, Stone had a valid law license

throughout the time he represented Miller in the case presently before this Court.

       {¶7} Since Stone was still a licensed attorney, Miller has not demonstrated

that the trial court erred as alleged in this appeal. Further, we find no indication that

the trial court abused its discretion in its handling of Stone’s motion to withdraw as

counsel. Accordingly, Miller’s sole assignment of error is overruled.

                                      Conclusion

       {¶8} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant in the particulars

assigned and argued, the judgment of the Wyandot County Court of Common Pleas

is affirmed.

                                                                   Judgment Affirmed

MILLER, P.J. and ZIMMERMAN, J., concur.

/hls

                                          -4-