State v. Farris

[Cite as State v. Farris, 2020-Ohio-134.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
ERIE COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. E-18-047
Appellee Trial Court No. 2017CR414
v.
Bret Farris DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: January 17, 2020
*****
Kevin J. Baxter, Erie County Prosecuting Attorney, and Anthony A.
Battista III, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Emil G. Gravelle III, for appellant.
*****
OSOWIK, J.
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a June 14, 2018 judgment of the Erie County Court of
Common Pleas, finding appellant guilty pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement of three
counts of telecommunications harassment, in violation of R.C. 2917.21, felonies of the
fifth degree, and one count of violation of a protection order, in violation of R.C. 2919.27,
a misdemeanor of the first degree. In exchange, four additional telecommunications
harassment counts, five additional protection order violation counts, and a misdemeanor
menacing charge were dismissed.
{¶ 2} Appellant was sentenced to a suspended three-year term of incarceration, in
addition to a five-year period of community control. For the reasons set forth below, this
court reverses the judgment of the trial court and remands this case to the trial court for
purposes of conducting a compulsory R.C. 2945.37(B) competency hearing regarding
appellant’s mental fitness to stand trial.
{¶ 3} The record reflects that appellant requested a competency evaluation, the
trial court granted the request, appellant was evaluated by the Court Diagnostic &
Treatment Center for both competency to stand trial and not guilty by reason of insanity
assessment purposes, written reports reaching independent medical opinions adverse to
appellant were forwarded to the trial court and reviewed by it, but the trial court erred in
failing to subsequently conduct a compulsory R.C. 2945.37 competency hearing
regarding appellant prior to case disposition.
{¶ 4} Thus, although the record reflects that counsel for appellant secured a
favorable outcome for appellant in the underlying plea agreement, appellant is entitled to
have the matter reversed and remanded to the trial court on the above-described
procedural basis.
2.
Appellant, Bret Farris, sets forth the following two assignments of error:
I. The trial court erred when it failed to conduct a competency
hearing before accepting [appellant’s] plea in violation of [due process
constitutional and statutory requirements].
II. The trial court erred [in ordering] a sentence that was contrary to
law [by imposing community control outside appellant’s presence].
{¶ 5} The following undisputed facts are relevant to this appeal. On November 8,
2017, appellant was indicted on 14 counts; seven counts of telecommunications
harassment, six counts of protection order violations, and one misdemeanor menacing
offense.
{¶ 6} On March 26, 2018, a pretrial conference was held. On April 3, 2018, at
appellant’s request, the trial court ordered an R.C. 2945.37(B) competency evaluation to
be performed for purposes of determining appellant’s legal competency to stand trial and
to determine whether the defense of not guilty by reason of insanity may apply to
appellant.
{¶ 7} The competency evaluation order was necessitated as the trial court was
advised that at the time of appellant’s indictment on the instant cases, appellant was a
patient at an out-of-state mental health treatment facility in response to possible suicidal
ideations. Accordingly, the trial court determined that it should not proceed further until
appellant’s legal competency to stand trial was ascertained. The evaluations of appellant
3.
were completed and submitted to the trial court. They reflected appellant to be legally
competent to stand trial.
{¶ 8} However, on June 14, 2018, without first conducting the R.C. 2945.37(B)
compulsory competency hearing to place the findings pertaining to appellant’s
competency on the record and make a formal competency determination, the trial court
accepted a negotiated plea agreement and disposed of appellant’s cases.
{¶ 9} On June 14, 2018, appellant entered a plea of guilty to three of the
telecommunications harassment counts and one of the violation of a protection order
counts. In exchange, the remaining ten offenses pending against appellant were
dismissed. Appellant was sentenced to a five-year term of community control and a
suspended three-year term of incarceration. This appeal ensued.
{¶ 10} In the first assignment of error, appellant asserts that the trial court
committed reversible error when it accepted appellant’s negotiated pleas and sentenced
appellant without having first conducted an R.C. 2945.37(B) competency hearing. We
concur.
{¶ 11} R.C. 2945.37(B) establishes in pertinent part, “In a criminal action in a
common pleas court * * * [I]f the issue of [defendant’s competency to stand trial] is
raised before the trial has commenced, the court shall hold a hearing on the issue as
provided in this section.” (Emphasis added).
4.
{¶ 12} Our review of this matter is guided by State v. Miller, 2017-Ohio-7091, 95
N.E.3d 832 (8th Dist.), which is illustrative on the proper handling of scenarios such as
the one present in the instant case.
{¶ 13} In Miller, as analogous to the present case, the trial court had ordered that
the defendant receive a competency evaluation prior to proceeding to trial, the
competency evaluation was completed, the written report was forwarded to the trial court
for review, but then the trial court subsequently accepted a negotiated plea agreement
without first conducting the requisite R.C. 2945.37(B) competency hearing.
{¶ 14} Given these circumstances, the Miller court held in relevant part, “An
evidentiary hearing is both statutorily and constitutionally required when the issue of
competency is raised before trial and there are sufficient indicia of incompetency to call
into doubt the competency to stand trial * * * Therefore, the trial court erred in failing to
hold a competency hearing as mandated by R.C. 2945.37(B) before accepting Miller’s
guilty pleas.” Miller, ¶ 13-14. Accordingly, the judgment was reversed and the case was
remanded to the trial court for purposes of conducting the competency hearing prior to
case resolution.
{¶ 15} Likewise, we find that the trial court erred in this case in failing to hold the
mandatory statutory competency hearing prior to accepting the plea agreement.
Accordingly, we find appellant’s first assignment of error well-taken.
5.
{¶ 16} Having determined that the trial court erred in failing to hold the statutorily
mandated competency hearing before accepting appellant’s guilty pleas, we find that the
remaining assignment of error is rendered moot as a matter of law.
{¶ 17} An R.C. 2945.37 competency hearing must be conducted prior to the trial
court’s acceptance of a new proposed plea agreement or prior to proceeding to trial on the
14 originally charged offenses.
{¶ 18} On consideration whereof, the judgment of the Erie County Court of
Common Pleas is hereby reversed. The case is remanded to the trial court for further
proceedings consistent with this decision. Appellee is ordered to pay the costs of this
appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.
Judgment reversed
and remanded.
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.