APPLICATION TO RESIGN LAW LICENSE PRACTICE LAW. While the attorney in this case submitted an application to resign his license to practice law in October 2022, the Ohio Supreme Court did not accept his application to resign until January of 2023. Thus, the attorney still had a license to practice law through the end of the case presently before this Court.
Decided 2023-04-24
[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,
(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-
