State v. Mills
| Docket Number | 2022-0779 |
| Decision Date | 28 December 2023 |
| Parties | The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Mills, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
1
2023-Ohio-4716
The State of Ohio, Appellee,
v.
Mills, Appellant.
No. 2022-0779
Supreme Court of Ohio
December 28, 2023
Submitted April 5, 2023
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Lucas County, No. L-20-1084, 2022-Ohio-969.
Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and Brenda J. Majdalani, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, and Kimberly E. Burroughs, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Steven L. Taylor, urging affirmance for amicus curiae, Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association.
DeWine, J., announcing the judgment of the court.
{¶ 1} This is an appeal of criminal convictions. In the trial court, the defendant's attorney asked for an assessment of the defendant's competency to stand trial. But after a competency evaluation was scheduled, the defendant refused to be transported to the treatment center where the examination was to take place.
The matter proceeded to trial without a competency hearing and the defendant was convicted.
{¶ 2} The Sixth District Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court had erred by not holding a competency hearing. 2022-Ohio-969, ¶ 27. But it held that the error was harmless because the record failed to reveal sufficient indicia of incompetency. Id.
{¶ 3} The defendant asks that we revisit our prior precedent on the harmless-error standard for trial-court errors involving the failure to hold a mandatory competency hearing. We decline to do so. We reaffirm our traditional standard that a trial court's failure to hold a mandatory competency hearing is harmless when the record, taken as a whole, fails to reveal sufficient indicia of incompetency. Applying this standard, we affirm the decision of the court of appeals.
I. A Trial, a Conviction, and an Appeal
{¶ 4} In July 2019, Miguel Mills was charged with two felonies for firing a gun at a car that was stopped at an intersection. A trial date was initially set for October 2019, but it was continued once so that Mills could consider a plea offer by the state and a second time so that the trial court could accommodate other cases on its docket. To Mills's frustration, his trial did not begin until December 2019.
{¶ 5} A couple weeks after the trial was continued the second time, Mills's attorney filed a "motion for competency and general mental health assessment." In support of this request, Mills's attorney said that Mills's mental stability since being detained was in a "downward spiral," rendering counsel unable to have a coherent conversation with Mills regarding the evidence against him, trial tactics, or the state's plea offer. The attorney also said that during three previous meetings, corrections officers had to be called to the meeting room because of Mills becoming "verbally violent and physically telegraphing potential violence." This behavior occurred, the attorney explained, whenever he was not "in complete agreement with
[Mills's] predetermined position * * * on even the smallest issues concerning the proceeding in court or his defense."
{¶ 6} In response to the motion, the trial court referred Mills for a general psychological evaluation. But when the time came for Mills to be transported to the treatment center for the examination, he refused to go. The evaluation was never rescheduled. Mills's attorney did not raise the matter further and the case proceeded to trial. A jury ultimately found Mills guilty of both felonies, and the trial court imposed a prison sentence.
{¶ 7} Mills appealed to the Sixth District. He argued, among other things, that the trial court committed reversible error by failing to hold a competency hearing. See 2022-Ohio-969 at ¶ 2. The Sixth District overruled that assignment of error and affirmed Mills's convictions. Id. at ¶ 27-28, 56. It noted that R.C. 2945.37(B) requires a competency hearing when the issue of the defendant's competency is raised prior to trial, but it held that the trial court's failure to conduct such a hearing was harmless error. 2022-Ohio-969 at ¶ 13-14, 27-28. Applying the standard that this court announced in State v. Bock, 28 Ohio St.3d 108, 502 N.E.2d 1016 (1986), the court of appeals explained that a trial court's failure to hold a mandatory competency hearing is harmless error when the record fails to reveal "sufficient indicia of incompetency." 2022-Ohio-969 at ¶ 27. It determined that Mills's behavior, "while aggressive, hostile, and disruptive, [was] not sufficient indicia of mental incompetency." Id. at ¶ 24. The court further explained that "the record contains evidence of [Mills's] capability of understanding the charges against him and of assisting his counsel." Id. at ¶ 27.
{¶ 8} Mills appealed, and we accepted jurisdiction over two propositions of law. See 167 Ohio St.3d 1482, 2022-Ohio-2765, 192 N.E.3d 510. In the first, Mills asserts that "[a]n appellate court considering whether a record on appeal contains 'sufficient indicia of incompetence' to trigger a constitutional competency hearing must review that record only for reasonable doubt * * * of the appellant's
incompetence in [the] lower-court proceedings." His second proposition posits: "A defendant cannot waive the issue of competency on a silent record."
II. The Trial Court's Failure to Hold a Competency Hearing Was Harmless Error
{¶ 9} Mills presents this appeal as a legal challenge to the harmless-error standard applied by the court of appeals. He asks us to create a standard that would require an appellate court to examine the record for "reasonable doubt * * * of the [defendant's] incompetence in lower-court proceedings." We decline to do so and instead adhere to our precedent. Applying that precedent, we find no error in the court of appeals' determination that the trial court's error in failing to hold a competency hearing was harmless.
A. We Adhere to the Sufficient-Indicia-of-Incompetency Standard
{¶ 10} The United States Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires procedures adequate to "protect a defendant's right not to be tried or convicted while incompetent to stand trial." Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 172, 95 S.Ct. 896, 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975). Ohio has enacted a statute, R.C. 2945.37, that details procedures to protect this right.
{¶ 11} A defendant is incompetent when he "is incapable of understanding the nature and objective of the proceedings against [him] or of assisting in [his] defense." R.C. 2945.37(G); see also Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 402, 80 S.Ct. 788, 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960) ("[T]he test must be 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").
{¶ 12} "[T]he court, prosecutor, or defense may raise the issue of the defendant's competence to stand trial." R.C. 2945.37(B). "If the issue is raised before the trial has commenced, the court shall hold a hearing on the issue."
(Emphasis added.) Id. "A defendant is presumed to be competent to stand trial." R.C. 2945.37(G). To rebut this presumption, the defendant's incompetency to stand trial must be established at the hearing by a preponderance of the evidence. Id.
{¶ 13} By requesting a competency examination, Mills's counsel raised the issue of Mills's competency. Thus, under the plain terms of R.C. 2945.37(B), the trial court should have held a competency hearing. Quite possibly, Mills's attorney would have been limited in what evidence of incompetency he could present at the hearing, given Mills's refusal to be transported for a competency examination. But if the issue of a defendant's competency is raised before trial, a competency hearing is mandatory. Id. And neither Mills's refusal to cooperate nor the failure of Mills's attorney to raise the issue after the initial motion excused the trial court from its duty to hold a competency hearing.
{¶ 14} But a court's failure to hold a mandatory competency hearing is not a basis for automatic reversal. Bock, 28 Ohio St.3d at 110, 502 N.E.2d 1016. Rather, "the failure to hold a mandatory competency hearing is harmless error where the record fails to reveal sufficient indicia of incompetency." Id; see also State v. Berry, 72 Ohio St.3d 354, 359, 650 N.E.2d 433 (1995), quoting Bock at 110 (the right to a competency hearing "rises to the level of a constitutional guarantee where the record contains 'sufficient indicia of incompetence,' such that an inquiry into the defendant's competency is necessary to ensure the defendant's right to a fair trial").
{¶ 15} We explained in Bock that incompetency is measured by the statutory criteria-the ability to understand the nature and objective of the proceedings and to assist in one's defense. Id. at 110. Thus, "[incompetency must not be equated with mere mental or emotional instability or even with outright insanity." Id. Indeed, "[a] defendant may be emotionally disturbed or even psychotic and still be capable of understanding the charges against him and of
assisting his counsel." Id.
{¶ 16} In Bock, this court looked to the trial record and concluded that there was not sufficient indicia of incompetency to render prejudicial the court's failure to hold a hearing. Id. at 110-111. The court noted that defense counsel had asked for a competency hearing and explained that the defendant was in the hospital for drug problems. Id. at 110. Further, the record revealed "testimony by [the defendant] of his emotional distress and comments about suicide." Id. But we determined that such evidence did not amount to sufficient indicia of incompetency:
Defense counsel, after the original motion for a hearing, failed ever again to mention the defendant's competency until the time for appeal. The record...
To continue reading
Request your trial