State v. Smith ( 2011 )

[Cite as State v. Smith, 2011-Ohio-2400.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 95505
STATE OF OHIO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
CHARLES SMITH
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT:
AFFIRMED
Criminal Appeal from the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-516223
BEFORE: S. Gallagher, J., Kilbane, A.J., and Jones, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: May 19, 2011
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT
Maureen Connors
Ann S. Vaughn
Connors & Vaughn
6000 Freedom Square Drive
Suite 165
Independence, OH 44131
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
William D. Mason
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
BY: Kristin Karkutt
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
The Justice Center, 9th Floor
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J.:
{¶ 1} Appellant Charles Smith appeals the decision of the Cuyahoga
County Court of Common Pleas accepting Smith’s guilty plea and sentencing
him to 17 months on domestic violence and felonious assault charges in Case
No. CR-516223. Smith argues that the trial court should have held a
competency hearing prior to accepting his guilty plea. For the following
reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
{¶ 2} In a prior appeal, State v. Smith, Cuyahoga App. No. 92649,
2010-Ohio-154 (“Smith I”), this court vacated Smith’s conviction on domestic
violence and felonious assault charges and remanded for the limited purpose
of holding a competency hearing pursuant to R.C. 2945.37. On October 21,
2008, Smith made an oral motion for a referral to the court’s psychiatric clinic
to evaluate his competency to stand trial, to determine his sanity at the time
of the act, to determine the propriety of transferring the case to the mental
health docket, and for a report on the psychiatric factors regarding
disposition. The record did not reflect whether such a report was generated
at the time of Smith I. The Smith I court found that the lack of a hearing on
Smith’s competency rendered the guilty plea invalid. The court remanded
the case to hold the hearing required by R.C. 2945.37, specifically noting that
“Smith’s counsel did not waive the competency hearing or stipulate to a
finding of competency.” Smith, 2010-Ohio-154, at ¶ 11.
{¶ 3} On remand, the trial court held a pretrial on the record where
Smith stipulated to the November 6, 2008 competency report, that he was
competent to stand trial, and that he was sane at the time of the offense. On
May 24, 2010, Smith pleaded guilty. We note that in contemplation of a
plea, the trial court agreed to reduce the term of incarceration by one year.
Smith timely appealed the second sentence with the current appeal. Smith’s
sole assignment of error reads as follows: “The trial court erred by failing to
conduct a competency hearing.” That assignment of error is not well taken.
{¶ 4} Under Ohio law, “a person whose mental condition is such that he
lacks the capacity to understand the nature and object of the proceedings
against him, to consult with counsel, and to assist in preparing his defense
may not be subjected to a trial. The conviction of an accused while he is not
legally competent to stand trial violates due process of law.” (Internal
citations omitted.) State v. Rubenstein (1987), 40 Ohio App.3d 57, 60, 531
N.E.2d 732.
{¶ 5} In addition, R.C. 2945.37 provides that if the prosecutor or
defendant raises the issue of competency before trial, the trial court must
conduct a hearing to determine, upon the evidence submitted, whether the
defendant is competent. The court must hold such a hearing “within thirty
days after the issue is raised, unless the defendant has been referred for
evaluation in which case the court shall conduct the hearing within ten days
after the filing of the report of the evaluation.” R.C. 2945.37(C). The
competency issue is one that can be waived by the parties. A hearing is not
required in all situations, only those where the competency issue is raised
and maintained. We acknowledge that once the issue is raised, there may be
situations where the defendant exhibits outward signs indicating the lack of
competency that may necessitate a hearing regardless of any stipulation.
That issue is not present in the current case. The record does not contain
any evidence that Smith exhibited any such signs.
{¶ 6} In the current case, the trial court held a pretrial on the record on
May 4, 2010, with Smith and his counsel present, at which Smith and the
prosecutor stipulated to the November 6, 2008 psychiatric report, Smith’s
sanity at the time of the offense, and Smith’s competency to stand trial. The
trial court accepted the stipulations and found the same. We note that at a
subsequent pretrial held on May 24, 2010, Smith referred to the May 4th
pretrial as the competency hearing. The trial court therefore complied with
this court’s mandate in Smith I. Smith’s stipulation nullified the need to
hold a hearing since a hearing is only needed to introduce evidence rebutting
the presumption of competency established in R.C. 2945.37(G). By
stipulating, Smith conceded the competency issue, in effect withdrawing any
previously raised issues with his competency. Since his competency was no
longer an issue, a further hearing was not required. Smith’s sole assignment
of error is overruled.
Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common pleas
court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant’s conviction having been
affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case remanded to the trial court for
execution of sentence.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the
Rules of Appellate Procedure.
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, JUDGE
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, A.J., and
LARRY A. JONES, J., CONCUR