State v. Ridley
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Ridley, 2011-Ohio-3496.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY State of Ohio Appellee Court of Appeals No. L-10-1314 Trial Court No. CR0200903404 v. George Ridley Appellant DECISION AND JUDGMENT Decided: July 13, 2011 ***** George Ridley, pro se. ***** PER CURIAM. {¶ 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. _______________________________ JUDGE Thomas J. Osowik, P.J. Stephen A. Yarbrough, J. CONCUR. _______________________________ JUDGE _______________________________ JUDGE 2.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
