State v. Rodeffer

• Decision Date: 27 December 2013
• Docket Number: 25575,Nos. 25574,25576.,s. 25574
• Citation: 5 N.E.3d 1069
• Parties: STATE of Ohio, Plaintiff–Appellee v. Cory B. RODEFFER, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

5 N.E.3d 1069

STATE of Ohio, Plaintiff–Appellee

v.Cory B. RODEFFER, Defendant–Appellant.

Nos. 25574, 25575, 25576.

Court of Appeals of Ohio,

Second District, Montgomery County.

Dec. 27, 2013.

Prior Version Recognized as Unconstitutional

R.C. § 2953.08(G)(2)

Mathias H. Heck, Jr., by Andrew T. French, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Montgomery County Prosecutor's Office, Appellate Division, Dayton, OH, for plaintiff-appellee.

Richard A. Nystrom, Dayton, OH, for defendant-appellant.

OPINION

WELBAUM, J.

{¶ 1} Defendant–Appellant, Cory B. Rodeffer, appeals from his prison sentence of seven years for one count of second-degree felony Robbery (physical harm), and three counts of third-degree felony Robbery (use of force), in Montgomery County Common Pleas Court Case Nos. 2012–CR–1283, 2012–CR–2887, and 2012–CR–2979. Rodeffer contends that the trial court erred in failing to hold a competency hearing to determine whether he was psychologically amenable to sentencing. He also contends that the trial court erred in failing to place him in a rehabilitation/mental health facility on community control sanctions as opposed to prison.

{¶ 2} We conclude that the trial court did not err in failing to hold a competency hearing prior to sentencing Rodeffer. A competency hearing was unwarranted because the record does not contain sufficient indicia of incompetence. The trial court also did not err in sentencing Rodeffer to prison as opposed to community control sanctions. In applying the felony sentencing standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), we do not clearly and convincingly find an absence of evidence on the record supporting the trial court's findings under R.C. 2929.13(D). Furthermore, Rodeffer's seven-year prison term is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.

I. Facts and Course of Proceedings

{¶ 3} Cory B. Rodeffer, committed two robbery sprees over a six-month period in Montgomery County, Ohio. The various robberies were prosecuted in three separate cases—Montgomery County Common Pleas Court Case Nos. 2012–CR–1283, 2012–CR–2887, and 2012–CR–2979.

{¶ 4} In Case No. 2012–CR–1283, Rodeffer robbed three gas station convenience stores on April 29 and 30, 2012. During each robbery, Rodeffer entered a convenience store, grabbed a small item, and approached the cashier as if he were going to buy the item. When the cashier opened the cash register to make the sale, Rodeffer jumped over the counter, grabbed money out of the cash register, and fled the scene. After committing the robberies, Rodeffer attempted to flee the police in a car chase, but he was caught and arrested shortly thereafter. During police questioning, Rodeffer admitted that he had committed the robberies and that he was addicted to crack, cocaine, and heroin. At his presentence investigation interview, Rodeffer also revealed that he had committed the robberies so that he could get money to purchase drugs and get high.

{¶ 5} On May 30, 2012, Rodeffer was indicted on one count of Robbery (use of force), a felony of the third degree; two counts of Robbery (physical harm), a felony of the second degree; one count of Petty Theft, a misdemeanor of the first degree; and one count of Failure to Comply, a felony of the third degree. As part of a negotiated plea agreement, Rodeffer pled guilty to one count of second-degree felony Robbery and one count of third-degree felony Robbery. The remaining counts against him were dismissed. On September 20, 2012, the trial court sentenced Rodeffer to community control sanctions not to exceed five years, and ordered him to complete treatment for his drug abuse through the MonDay Program. After sentencing, Rodeffer was released from prison on electronic home detention pending the availability of a bed at the MonDay Program.

{¶ 6} The day after he was sentenced and released, Rodeffer robbed two more gas station convenience stores in the exact same manner as he had before. He was arrested approximately one month later. During his presentence investigation interview, Rodeffer advised that he “lost it” when he found out that he was sanctioned to the MonDay Program. He claims that he was concerned about losing his job and not seeing his daughter. As a result, he went into a state of depression, and began abusing drugs again. After he ran out of money for drugs, he recalled how easy it was to get money from gas stations; so he decided to commit the additional robberies.

{¶ 7} The additional robberies were prosecuted under Case Nos. 2012–CR–2887 and 2012–CR–2979. In each of these cases, Rodeffer pled guilty to one count of Robbery (use of force), a third degree felony. During the plea hearing, the defense requested a psychological report on Rodeffer. The defense explained that it was not requesting a full competency hearing and was not claiming that Rodeffer lacked competence. Instead, the defense believed that a psychological report would assist in treating Rodeffer's mental health issues if he were sentenced to prison. In response, the trial court noted that it would request information on Rodeffer's psychological status for purposes of the presentence investigation report (PSI).

{¶ 8} The resulting PSI stated that Rodeffer used drugs to self medicate so that he does not have to think about past physical, sexual, and emotional abuse he endured as a child by his father. However, the PSI indicated that Rodeffer had never been diagnosed with a mental health disability, and that he was not under a doctor's care. The PSI also stated that Rodeffer had not reported any past or present suicidal or homicidal ideations or attempts.

{¶ 9} During the sentencing hearing for the additional robberies, the defense changed its stance on Rodeffer's competency. Defense counsel informed the court that he believed Rodeffer was suicidal, and that he questioned Rodeffer's competency to be sentenced due to a steady decline in his mental health since the plea hearing. As a result, the defense made an oral motion for a psychological evaluation in order to determine Rodeffer's competency prior to sentencing.

{¶ 10} The trial court did not rule on the oral motion and did not order a psychological evaluation on Rodeffer. Instead, the court proceeded with sentencing Rodeffer to 36 months in prison for each Robbery count in Case Nos. 2012–CR–2887 and 2012–CR–2979. Since the additional robberies violated Rodeffer's probation in Case No. 2012–CR–1283, the trial court also revoked his community control sanctions, and re-sentenced him to seven years in prison for the second-degree felony Robbery and 36 months in prison for the third-degree felony Robbery. The trial court ordered all of the 36–month terms to run concurrently with the seven-year term. As a result, Rodeffer was sentenced to a total of seven years in prison for all three robbery cases.

{¶ 11} Rodeffer appeals from the trial court's sentence.

II. The Trial Court Did Not Err in Failing to Conduct a Competency Hearing and in Sentencing Appellant to Prison

{¶ 12} Rodeffer's sole assignment of error is as follows:

Whether the Trial Court Erred in Failing to Conduct a Hearing on the Ammenability [sic] of Defendant's Mental Condition to Endure a Prison Sentence in Lieu of Suitable Community Control Conditions and Thereby Precluded Defendant's Constitutional Rights to Due Process Under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 10, of the Ohio State Constitution.

{¶ 13} Under this assignment of error, Rodeffer contends that the trial court erred in: (1) failing to hold a competency hearing; and (2) failing to place him in a rehabilitation/mental health facility on community control sanctions as opposed to sentencing him to prison.

1. Competency Hearing

{¶ 14} Rodeffer claims that his mental condition warranted a competency hearing to determine whether he was psychologically amenable to sentencing. He contends that in failing to hold a competency hearing, the court failed to accord him his constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial.

{¶ 15} “[T]he failure to observe procedures adequate to protect a defendant's right not to be tried or convicted while incompetent to stand trial deprives him of his due process right to a fair trial.” Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 172, 95 S.Ct. 896, 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975), citing Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 378, 86 S.Ct. 836, 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966). Accordingly, “[t]he right to a hearing on the issue of competency 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'sright to a fair trial.” State v. Berry, 72 Ohio St.3d 354, 359, 650 N.E.2d 433 (1995), citing Drope at 175, 95 S.Ct. 896, 43 L.Ed.2d 103. (Other citations omitted.)

{¶ 16} According to Ohio law, a defendant is deemed incompetent to stand trial only if “after a hearing, the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that, because of the defendant's present mental condition, the defendant is incapable of understanding the nature and objective of the proceedings against the defendant or of assisting in the defendant's defense* * *.” R.C. 2945.37(G).

{¶ 17} If the issue of competence “is raised before the trial has commenced, the court shall hold a hearing on the issue * * *. 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.” R.C. 2945.37(B). When the issue of competence is raised after a defendant pleads guilty, but before sentencing, the issue is deemed to have been raised after the commencement of trial. State v. Burns, 12th Dist. Butler Nos. CA2004–07–084, CA2004–10–126, 2005-Ohio-5290, 2005 WL 2416820, ¶ 37, citing Berry at 360, 650 N.E.2d 433. In that situation, R.C. 2945.37(B) mandates a competency hearing ...