Mandamus, Faretta, and Jurisdiction: Denial of the Right to Self-Representation is a Non-Jurisdictional Error – State ex rel. Johnson v. McNamara (2025-Ohio-2891)

Introduction

State ex rel. Johnson v. McNamara is the Supreme Court of Ohio’s latest pronouncement on the proper use of the extraordinary writ of mandamus in criminal matters. The case centers on Alfred A. Johnson Sr., an inmate who sought a writ compelling Common Pleas Judge Joseph McNamara to vacate his robbery conviction after the judge refused Johnson’s mid-trial request to discharge counsel and proceed pro se. Johnson argued that this refusal violated the Sixth Amendment right of self-representation established in Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), thus purportedly stripping the trial court of both personal and subject-matter jurisdiction and rendering the ensuing judgment void.

The Sixth District Court of Appeals dismissed his petition sua sponte. On further appeal, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed, holding that:

Even a constitutional error tied to the right of self-representation is non-jurisdictional; it makes the conviction voidable, not void.
An adequate remedy existed through the ordinary course of law—namely, direct appeal—thereby foreclosing mandamus.

Summary of the Judgment

In a per curiam opinion, the Court held:

The Lucas County Court of Common Pleas possessed personal jurisdiction—Johnson was indicted, arrested, arraigned, and tried—and subject-matter jurisdiction—robbery is a felony within the court’s constitutional and statutory competence (R.C. 2931.03).
Alleged violations of Faretta, juror bias, or defective indictments do not divest the trial court of jurisdiction; they constitute trial errors reviewable on appeal.
Because Johnson had already pursued (and lost) a direct appeal raising the same issues, mandamus was unavailable. A court may dismiss a writ petition sua sponte when the claimant obviously cannot prevail.

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) – Recognizes a defendant’s constitutional right to self-representation. Johnson invoked Faretta as the linchpin of his jurisdictional challenge. The Ohio Supreme Court accepted, arguendo, that a violation might have occurred but emphasized that such a violation is trial error, not a jurisdictional defect.
State v. Harper, 2020-Ohio-2913 – Clarified that subject-matter jurisdiction concerns the court’s power to hear a class of cases, unaffected by individual rights infractions. Harper is quoted for the proposition that errors in the exercise of jurisdiction do not eliminate jurisdiction itself.
State ex rel. Ogle v. Hocking Cty. Common Pleas Court, 2023-Ohio-3534 – Specifically held that right-to-counsel violations do not void sentences. Johnson extends this logic to the Faretta context.
State ex rel. Martre v. Reed, 2020-Ohio-4777 – Restated the three-part mandamus test. The Court applies it strictly, especially the “no adequate remedy at law” element.
State ex rel. Kerr v. Pollex, 2020-Ohio-411 – Authorizes sua sponte dismissal of obviously meritless extraordinary-writ petitions. Used to validate the Sixth District’s procedure.

B. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Jurisdictional Lens vs. Trial-Error Lens
The Court draws an important distinction: a trial court’s power to hear a felony prosecution (jurisdiction) is supplied by statute and does not evaporate due to constitutional missteps during the proceedings. Thus:

Personal jurisdiction remains intact so long as proper process, arrest, and arraignment occur.
Subject-matter jurisdiction is conferred by R.C. 2931.03 over all felony crimes; the court is “competent to hear the controversy.”

Because the asserted errors (denial of self-representation, juror familiarity, charging language) occur within that jurisdiction, the resulting judgment is, at worst, voidable. A voidable judgment stands unless and until reversed on appeal; it cannot be collaterally attacked through mandamus.

2. Adequacy of Alternative Remedies
Mandamus lies only when no adequate legal remedy exists. Johnson did pursue a direct appeal (Lucas App. No. L-23-xxxx) raising exactly the Faretta claim; losing on appeal does not retroactively render the remedy inadequate. Hence, the third prong of the mandamus test fails.

3. Procedural Regularity of Sua Sponte Dismissal
Citing Kerr, the Court approves the appellate court’s sua sponte action, emphasizing judicial economy when the petition’s defects are patent.

C. Potential Impact on Ohio Jurisprudence

Clarifies Scope of “Void Sentences” Doctrine – Extends the Court’s post-Harper line, reinforcing that only jurisdictional defects produce void judgments. Faretta violations join the list of non-jurisdictional errors.
Constrains Extraordinary-Writ Litigation – Inmates frequently mislabel trial-error complaints as jurisdictional to gain collateral review. This decision provides a clear template for lower courts to summarily dismiss such petitions.
Finality and Efficiency – Encourages defendants to raise Sixth-Amendment and jury-bias issues on direct appeal and discourages repetitive collateral filings, thus promoting judicial finality.
Sua Sponte Dismissal Endorsement – Confirms appellate courts’ authority to weed out facially meritless writ petitions without formal notice, provided the record demonstrates impossibility of relief.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Mandamus – An “extraordinary” court order commanding a public official to fulfill a clear legal duty when there is no adequate alternative remedy. It is not an all-purpose appeal.
Subject-Matter Jurisdiction – The court’s statutory or constitutional authority to hear a class of cases (e.g., felonies). Absent such authority, anything the court does is a nullity.
Personal Jurisdiction – The court’s authority over the specific defendant, achieved through lawful arrest/arraignment.
Void vs. Voidable – A void judgment is null from inception (e.g., rendered by a court with no jurisdiction). A voidable judgment is erroneous but valid until reversed on direct review.
Faretta Inquiry – A colloquy the trial judge must conduct to ensure a defendant’s waiver of counsel is knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. Failure to conduct it correctly is reversible error—yet still non-jurisdictional.

Conclusion

State ex rel. Johnson v. McNamara fortifies the wall between jurisdictional defects and trial errors within Ohio’s criminal-procedure landscape. The decision:

Confirms that denial of the constitutional right to self-representation, while serious, does not void a conviction.
Reiterates that direct appeal—not mandamus—is the proper channel for redressing such grievances.
Provides lower courts with precedent to summarily dismiss future writ petitions premised on similar non-jurisdictional claims.

In the broader legal context, the case advances principles of finality and procedural orderliness, compelling litigants to channel constitutional claims through the designated appellate framework and reinforcing the narrow, exceptional nature of extraordinary writ relief.