From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Ridley

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth District, Lucas County
Jul 13, 2011
2011 Ohio 3496 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011)

Opinion

No. L-10-1314.

Decided: July 13, 2011.

Trial Court No. CR0200903404.

George Ridley, pro se.


DECISION AND JUDGMENT


{¶ 1} Appellant, George Ridley, has filed a motion pro se to strike certain telephone recordings from the record on appeal. Appellant is represented by counsel and this court cannot entertain motions filed by appellant pro se. See State v. Tenace, 109 Ohio St.3d 451, 2006-Ohio-2987, ¶ 10; State v. Keenan (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 133. In State v. Keenan, the Ohio Supreme Court explained:

{¶ 2} "A defendant has no right to a `hybrid' form of representation wherein he is represented by counsel, but also acts simultaneously as his own counsel. McKaskle, 465 U.S. at 183, 104 S. Ct. at 953, 79 L. Ed. 2d at 136; State v. Thompson (1987), 33 Ohio St. 3d 1, 6, 514 N.E.2d 407, 414." State v. Keenan at 138.

{¶ 3} Accordingly, the motion is ordered stricken from the record.

MOTION DENIED.

Mark L. Pietrykowski, J., Thomas J. Osowik, P.J., Stephen A. Yarbrough, J., CONCUR.


Summaries of

State v. Ridley

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth District, Lucas County
Jul 13, 2011
2011 Ohio 3496 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011)
Case details for

State v. Ridley

Case Details

Full title:State of Ohio, Appellee, v. George Ridley, Appellant

Court:Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth District, Lucas County

Date published: Jul 13, 2011

Citations

2011 Ohio 3496 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011)