Ohio v. Chambliss
Annotate this Case
Defendants-Appellants Dantae Chambliss, James Bennett and Travis Saunders were indicted on drug related offenses. Each defendant retained his own attorney, plead not guilty, and filed requests for discovery. After defendants' motions for separate trials were denied, they filed motions to continue based on the fact that they had not yet received the search warrant affidavit despite repeated requests. The parties arrived at a plea bargain and defendants plead guilty, but the trial court refused to accept the plea. The trial court vacated the pleas, set trial, and granted a motion to unseal the search warrant affidavit. At a hearing at trial, it became apparent that the defense attorneys had not received the search warrant affidavit, and claimed that if they were required to proceed at trial without the necessary information, they would be ineffective as counsel within the meaning of the Sixth Amendment. The trial court removed all three retained counsel, remanded the defendants to the custody of the sheriff, and ordered the defendants to retain new counsel and be ready for trial in two weeks' time. The defendants retained new counsel, and filed motions with the court of appeals to stay execution of the trial court's order. On appeal, the county court of appeals vacated the trial, and concluded that the removal of retained counsel was not a final and appealable order. Accordingly the court dismissed the appeal as to that issue. This appeal was filed to decide whether the denial of retained counsel is an appealable order. The Supreme Court noted the quandary left by the county appellate court by its decision: "[b]y asserting that this is not a final, appealable order…the state was left in a position where, should it obtain a conviction at trial, that conviction would be subject to automatic reversal. Further, defendants could not lose, since they would either win the case or it would be reversed due to structural error. … this court's decision in State ex rel. Keenan v. Calabrese warranted a conclusion that the order removing appellants' retained counsel was not a final, appealable order. We not conclude that it is a final, appealable order."
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.