State v. Lanier , 2022 Ohio 1975 ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as State v. Lanier, 
    2022-Ohio-1975
    .]
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
    SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    LUCAS COUNTY
    State of Ohio/City of Toledo                     Court of Appeals No. L-21-1183
    Appellee                                 Trial Court No. CRB-21-02983 0103
    v.
    Myron Keith Lanier, Jr.                          DECISION AND JUDGMENT
    Appellant                                Decided: June 10, 2022
    *****
    David Toska, City of Toledo Chief Prosecuting Attorney, and
    Christopher D. Lawrence, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
    Sarah R. Anjum, for appellant.
    *****
    PIETRYKOWSKI, J.
    {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Myron Keith Lanier, Jr., appeals the September 17,
    2021 judgment of the Toledo Municipal Court which, following a bench trial finding him
    guilty of obstructing official business and criminal trespass, sentenced him to concurrent
    90 and 30 day sentences. Because we find no error, we affirm.
    I. Facts
    {¶ 2} On April 9, 2021, appellant was charged with assault, criminal trespass, and
    obstructing official business following appellant’s arrest after refusing to wear a mask,
    mandated at the time, or leave the Toledo Lucas County Public Library in downtown
    Toledo, Ohio. Following his not guilty pleas, on September 15, 2021, the matter
    proceeded to a trial to the court. Testimony was presented by the library’s chief security
    officer and the Toledo Police arresting officer. A body cam video depicting the incident
    was played for the court and admitted into evidence.
    {¶ 3} At the close of the evidence, the court dismissed the assault charge pursuant
    to Crim.R. 29. Appellant was found guilty of the remaining charges of criminal trespass
    and obstructing official business. After sentencing, appellant commenced this appeal.
    II. Assignments of Error
    I. The trial court erred in failing to order a competency exam for Mr.
    Lanier.
    II. The evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support a
    conviction for obstructing official business.
    III. Discussion
    {¶ 4} In appellant’s first assignment of error he contends that the record
    demonstrates that appellant “expressed numerous indicia of incompetence”; thus, the
    court’s failure to conduct a competency hearing deprived him of his right to a fair trial.
    2.
    {¶ 5} It is undisputed that appellant did not raise the issue of competency in the
    trial court; accordingly, our review is limited to plain error. State v. Cepec, 
    149 Ohio St.3d 438
    , 
    2016-Ohio-8076
    , 
    75 N.E.3d 1185
    , ¶ 67. To establish plain error under
    Crim.R. 52, a defendant must show a plain or obvious deviation from a legal rule in the
    trial proceedings that affected the outcome of the trial. State v. Morgan, 
    153 Ohio St.3d 196
    , 
    2017-Ohio-7565
    , 
    103 N.E.3d 784
    , ¶ 36.
    {¶ 6} A defendant is presumed competent to stand trial. R.C. 2945.37(G). R.C.
    2945.37(B) provides the mechanism for addressing a defendant’s competency:
    In a criminal action in a court of common pleas, a county court, or a
    municipal court, the court, prosecutor, or defense may raise the issue of the
    defendant’s competence to stand trial. If the issue is raised before the trial
    has commenced, the court shall hold a hearing on the issue as provided in
    this section. If the issue is raised after the trial has commenced, the court
    shall hold a hearing on the issue only for good cause shown or on the
    court’s own motion.
    {¶ 7} A finding of mental incompetency is premised upon
    “‘whether [the defendant] has sufficient present ability to consult with his
    lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding—and whether he
    has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against
    him.’” State v. Berry (1995), 
    72 Ohio St.3d 354
    , 359, 
    650 N.E.2d 433
    ,
    3.
    quoting Dusky v. United States (1960), 
    362 U.S. 402
    , 402, 
    80 S.Ct. 788
    , 
    4 L.Ed.2d 824
    .
    State v. Were, 
    118 Ohio St.3d 448
    , 
    2008-Ohio-2762
    , 
    890 N.E.2d 263
    , ¶ 45.
    {¶ 8} To support his argument that a competency hearing was warranted, appellant
    cites to instances of “confusion” evidenced in the record as to why he was in court, the
    status of his representation by counsel, and the stage of the proceedings. Reviewing the
    court proceedings, we conclude that while there was some confusion about which case
    was currently before the court when others were pending and the fact that he continued to
    try and argue his case (making cogent arguments) following the close of the testimony
    demonstrates a lack of familiarity with the legal system, it does not demonstrate
    appellant’s incompetency. Further, appellant’s statement: “If you find me guilty, I ain’t
    going to be here” is not necessarily a suicide threat as suggested by appellant.
    {¶ 9} Based on the foregoing, we find no plain error in the court’s failure to
    inquire into appellant’s competency. Appellant’s first assignment of error is not well-
    taken.
    {¶ 10} Appellant’s second assignment of error argues that his conviction for
    obstructing official business was not supported by sufficient evidence. In reviewing a
    challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, “the relevant question is whether, after
    viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of
    fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”
    State v. Worley, 
    164 Ohio St.3d 589
    , 
    2021-Ohio-2207
    , 
    174 N.E.3d 754
    , ¶ 57. When
    4.
    reviewing for sufficiency, an appellate court “will not weigh the evidence or assess the
    credibility of witnesses.” State v. Tucker, 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-16-063, 2018-Ohio-
    1869, ¶ 23, citing State v. Walker, 
    55 Ohio St.2d 208
    , 212, 
    378 N.E.2d 1049
     (1978).
    {¶ 11} In order to prove the charge of obstructing official business, R.C.
    2921.31(A), the state must prove: “‘(1) an act by the defendant, (2) done with the purpose
    to prevent, obstruct, or delay a public official, (3) that actually hampers or impedes a
    public official, (4) while the official is acting in the performance of a lawful duty, and (5)
    the defendant so acts without privilege.’” Brooklyn v. Kaczor, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.
    98816, 
    2013-Ohio-2901
    , ¶ 7, quoting State v. Kates, 
    169 Ohio App.3d 766
    , 2006-Ohio-
    6779, 
    865 N.E.2d 66
    , ¶ 21 (10th Dist.).
    {¶ 12} Appellant argues that he did not act with purpose to delay or prevent the
    acts of the officers and that he left the library upon being told to leave. The state disputes
    appellant’s interpretation of the events stating that appellant’s refusal to leave the library,
    combined with his pushing away from the officer and flight following notice that he was
    being placed under arrest was legally sufficient to support the court’s guilty verdict.
    {¶ 13} Analyzing the obstructing official business elements, courts have
    specifically found that a defendant’s act of fleeing or hiding from officers during
    performance of their official duties, was considered a purposeful act to hinder or delay.
    Kates at ¶ 24-25; Toledo v. Phillips, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-14-1016, 
    2015-Ohio-3484
    , ¶
    16.
    5.
    {¶ 14} Upon review, we agree with the state that sufficient evidence was presented
    at trial to support the court’s finding that appellant obstructed the official duties of the
    responding Toledo Police officers. Appellant argued with the officers, refused to leave
    the library, and then fled in order to avoid arrest. Accordingly, appellant’s second
    assignment of error is not well-taken.
    IV. Conclusion
    {¶ 15} On consideration whereof, we find that the judgment of the Toledo
    Municipal Court is affirmed. Pursuant to App.R. 24, appellant is ordered to pay the costs
    of this appeal.
    Judgment affirmed.
    A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
    See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
    Mark L. Pietrykowski, J.                          ____________________________
    JUDGE
    Thomas J. Osowik, J.
    ____________________________
    Christine E. Mayle, J.                                      JUDGE
    CONCUR.
    ____________________________
    JUDGE
    This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
    Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
    version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
    http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.
    6.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: L-21-1183

Citation Numbers: 2022 Ohio 1975

Judges: Pietrykowski

Filed Date: 6/10/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/13/2022