Court Opinion

ID: 9901950
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-22 18:08:44.647713+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:41.795427
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Helms, 2023-Ohio-4225.]

STATE OF OHIO                     )                   IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
                                  )ss:                NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SUMMIT                  )

STATE OF OHIO                                         C.A. Nos.     30320
                                                                    30321
        Appellee

        v.
                                                      APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
JOEL HELMS                                            ENTERED IN THE
                                                      BARBERTON MUNICIPAL COURT
        Appellant                                     COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO
                                                      CASE Nos. 21 CRB 00259
                                                                 22 CRB 00310

                                 DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

Dated: November 22, 2023

        FLAGG LANZINGER, Judge

        {¶1}     Joel Helms appeals from the judgment of the Barberton Municipal Court. This court

affirms.

                                                 I.

        {¶2}     On February 3, 2021, Helms was charged with one count of theft, in violation of

R.C. 2913.02. On February 21, 2022, Helms was charged with one count of obstructing official

business, in violation of R.C. 2921.31 and one count of criminal trespass, in violation of R.C.

2911.2l(A)(l). Helms entered a plea of not guilty to the charges. Helms retained an attorney who

represented both him and his co-defendant.

        {¶3}     On December 14, 2021, Helms’s attorney filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for

Helms’s co-defendant. Helms’s attorney also indicated an intention to continue representing
                                                 2

Helms. However, the trial court removed Helms’s attorney, determining he was disqualified due

to a conflict of interest. Helms continued pro se and the matter proceeded to a jury trial.

       {¶4}    The jury found Helms guilty on all counts. The trial court sentenced Helms to serve

ten days in Community Alternative Sentencing Center (C.A.S.C.), and an aggregate $110 fine.

Helms now appeals raising five assignments of error for our review. To facilitate analysis, we

choose to address the assignments of error in a non-sequential order.

                                                 II.

                                 ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II

       CAN A PREJUDICED COURT PROVIDE JUSTICE?

       {¶5}    In his assignment of error, Helms makes multiple arguments alleging the trial court

was prejudiced. Helms contends that a change of venue was required because the trial court showed

prejudice in its comments and actions. Helms argues that the trial court abused its discretion when

it removed his retained trial counsel of choice because of a conflict of interest. Helms also argues

that the court should not have allowed video evidence to be admitted. We disagree.

       {¶6}    This Court will first analyze Helms’s argument pertaining to the trial court’s

removal of Helms’s retained trial counsel. Criminal defendants enjoy a constitutional right to

counsel. Sixth Amendment to the Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 10. “[One] element of [that]

right is the right of a defendant who does not require appointed counsel to choose who will

represent him.” United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140, 144 (2006). If a defendant has the

ability to retain a qualified attorney, the Sixth Amendment generally protects his choice of counsel.

Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States, 491 U.S. 617, 625 (1989). “A court commits

structural error when it wrongfully denies a defendant his counsel of choice, so a defendant need

not demonstrate further prejudice.” State v. Miller, 9th Dist. Summit No. 27048, 2015-Ohio-279,
                                                3

¶ 8, citing Gonzalez-Lopez at 150. The wrongful denial “entitles [the defendant] to an automatic

reversal of his conviction.” State v. Chambliss, 128 Ohio St.3d 507, 2011-Ohio-1785, ¶ 18.

Moreover, because the right to one’s choice of counsel is fundamental, a pretrial ruling that

removes one’s retained counsel of choice is immediately appealable. See id. at syllabus. Accord

State v. Rivera, 9th Dist. Lorain Nos. 16CA011057, 16CA011059, 16CA011060, 16CA011061,

16CA011063, 16CA011073, 16CA011075, 2017-Ohio-8514, ¶ 5.

         {¶7}   The trial court’s order removing Helms’s retained counsel was a final appealable

order. Chambliss at ¶ 2. If Helms wished to challenge the trial court’s judgment removing his

attorney, he had to file a timely appeal within 30 days of the entry of that judgment. He failed to

do so.

         {¶8}   Because Helms did not timely appeal the trial court’s December 17, 2021, order

removing his retained counsel, he has failed to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction to address his

challenge. See Gatlin v. Harmon, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 19CA011597, 2021-Ohio-1852, ¶ 13,

quoting BankUnited v. Klug, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 16CA010923, 2016-Ohio-5769, ¶ 12.

Accordingly, Helms’s challenge to the trial court’s disqualification of retained counsel is not

properly before us for consideration.

         {¶9}   Regarding Helms’s other arguments, we observe that Helms does not point this

Court to any caselaw or develop a cogent argument supporting his contentions that a change of

venue was required or that the court erred when it allowed video evidence to be admitted. An

appellant bears the burden of affirmatively demonstrating the error on appeal and substantiating

his arguments in support. Angle v. W. Res. Mut. Ins. Co., 9th Dist. Medina No. 2729-M, 1998 WL

646548, *1 (Sept. 16, 1998); Frecska v. Frecska, 9th Dist. Wayne No. 96CA0086, 1997 WL

625488, *2 (Oct. 1, 1997). See also App.R. 16(A)(7) and Loc.R. 16(A)(7). “As this Court has
                                                  4

repeatedly held, ‘[i]f an argument exists that can support [an] assignment of error, it is not this

[C]ourt’s duty to root it out.’” (Alterations sic.) In re Guardianship of Jenkins, 9th Dist. Summit

No. 29981, 2022-Ohio-1043, ¶ 10, quoting King v. Divoky, 9th Dist. Summit No. 29769, 2021-

Ohio-1712, ¶ 50.

       {¶10} App.R. 16 provides in pertinent part the following:

       (A) Brief of the appellant[.] The appellant shall include in its brief * * * all of the
       following:

        ***

       (7) An argument containing the contentions of the appellant with respect to each
       assignment of error presented for review and the reasons in support of the
       contentions, with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record on
       which appellant relies. * * * .

App.R. 16(A)(7). See also Hershberger v. Shelmar Realty, Inc., 9th Dist. Summit No.

28110, 2017-Ohio-353, ¶ 12; Loc.R. 16(A)(7).

       {¶11} In addition to reflecting the requirements specified in App.R. 16(A)(7), Loc.R.

16(A)(7) provides that an appellant's brief must separately discuss each assignment of error, “and

shall include the standard * * * of review applicable to that assignment of error * * *.”

       {¶12} Helms has set forth two additional arguments within this assignment of error that

are neither substantiated by specific arguments, nor supported by citations to authorities or statutes.

Helms does not provide a standard of review as required by the Local Rules. Thus, Helms has

failed to meet his burden on appeal, and for this reason we decline to address his additional

arguments. Helms’s second assignment of error is overruled.

                                  ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I

       MUST A CONTRACTUAL PARTY PERFORM AN ACT CONTRARY
       TO THEIR WELL- BEING OR PUBLIC POLICY?
                                                    5

                                  ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III

        CAN HELMS BE PROSECUTED FOR TRESPASS WHERE HIS
        PROTECTED RIGHTS TO PERSONAL AND REAL PROPERTY HAVE
        NOT BEEN TERMINATED BY NOTICE AND HEARING?

                                  ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR IV

        THERE MUST BE AN EXPECTANCE THAT AN OFFICER GAVE AN
        ORDER BEFORE ONE COULD OBEY.

                                   ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR V

        HELMS HAS RIGHT TO KNOW CHARGES AND SENTENCE TO
        AFFORD PROPER DEFENSE.

        {¶13} With regard to Helms’s other assignments of error, we observe, as above, that

Helms has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating the error on appeal. As outlined above, and

applicable to our analysis here, an appellant bears the burden of affirmatively demonstrating the

error on appeal and substantiating his or her arguments in support.

        {¶14} Helms has set forth four assignments of error that are not connected to any specific

arguments, nor supported by citations to authorities or statutes. Helms sets forth different

contentions in his assignments of error, some of which are mere statements of fact, without

articulating the relation of these assertions to any authorities or ultimate error at the trial court level

in this case. Additionally, Helms fails to provide standards of review as required by the Local

Rules. Thus, Helms has failed to meet his burden on appeal.

        {¶15} Accordingly, Helms's first, third, fourth, and fifth assignments of error are

overruled.
                                                 6

                                                III.

       {¶16} Helms’s assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Barberton

Municipal Court is affirmed.

                                                                               Judgment affirmed.

       There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

       We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Barberton Municipal

Court, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy

of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.

       Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of

judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period

for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to

mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the

docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.

       Costs taxed to Appellant.

                                                       JILL FLAGG LANZINGER
                                                       FOR THE COURT

STEVENSON, J.
CONCURS.

CARR, P. J.
CONCURS IN JUDGMENT ONLY.
                                         7

APPEARANCES:

JOEL HELMS, pro se, Appellant.

JENNIFER A. ROBERTS, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.