State v. Sims
| Docket Number | 13-21-14 |
| Decision Date | 26 September 2022 |
| Parties | STATE of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Noel G. SIMS, II, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Brian A. Smith, Akron, for Appellant.
Derek W. DeVine, for Appellee.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Noel G. Sims, II, ("Sims"), appeals the May 25, 2021 judgment of the Seneca County Court of Common Pleas retaining jurisdiction over him and committing him to Twin Valley Behavioral Healthcare-Moritz. For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part and reverse in part.
{¶2} On June 19, 2019, the Seneca County Grand Jury indicted Sims on Count One of aggravated burglary in violation of R.C. 2911.11(A)(1), (B), a first-degree felony, Count Two of kidnapping in violation of R.C. 2905.01(A)(4), (C)(1), a first-degree felony, and Count Three of attempted rape in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(2), (B), 2923.02(A), (E)(1), a second-degree felony.
{¶3} In response to Sims's June 21, 2019 motion contesting his competency to stand trial under R.C. 2945.37, the trial court ordered a competency evaluation of Sims in accordance with R.C. 2945.371(G)(3) and (4) on June 28, 2019.1 "Under R.C. 2945.38(B)(1) and (C)(1), a common pleas court presiding over a criminal case involving a defendant charged with a violent first- or second-degree felony who has been found incompetent to stand trial pursuant to R.C. 2945.37 may require the defendant to undergo treatment for up to one year." State v. Williams , 126 Ohio St.3d 65, 2010-Ohio-2453, 930 N.E.2d 770, ¶ 11.
{¶4} After a hearing on September 5, 2019, the trial court concluded that Sims was not competent to stand trial but that there was a substantial probability that his competence to stand trial could be restored within the one-year period. See Williams at ¶ 11 (), citing R.C. 2945.38(B)(1)(a). That same day, the trial court appointed a new attorney to represent Sims at Sims's request.
{¶5} Following a hearing on December 18, 2019, the trial court concluded that Sims was competent to stand trial but ordered that his mental condition at the time of the offenses charged be evaluated under R.C. 2945.371(G)(4). See R.C. 2945.371(G)(4) (2016) (current version at R.C. 2945.371(H)(4) (2021)). Notwithstanding the trial court's order for Sims to be evaluated under R.C. 2945.371(G)(4), the examiner evaluated Sims under R.C. 2945.371(G)(3) after developing "concern[s] regarding [Sim's] mental state, appreciation for the alleged offenses, and [his] capacity to understand the nature and objective of the proceedings against him and of assisting in his defense." (Doc. No. 37). Consequently, the trial court again concluded on February 3, 2020 that Sims was not competent to stand trial but that there was a substantial probability that his competence to stand trial could be restored within the one-year period.
{¶6} After a hearing on May 22, 2020, the trial court concluded that Sims was competent to stand trial and that Sims knew the wrongfulness of his actions at the time of the offenses charged. At the same hearing, the trial court entered pleas of not guilty to the counts of the indictment on behalf of Sims and Sims informed the trial court that he "no longer wishes representation by counsel in this matter." (Doc. No. 43). Thereafter, Sims executed a written waiver of counsel on May 28, 2020. On June 10, 2020, the trial court appointed standby counsel to assist Sims in the proceedings if necessary.
{¶7} On October 2, 2020, over Sims's objection, the trial court granted the State's R.C. 2945.37(B) request that Sims undergo a competency evaluation under R.C. 2945.371(G)(3). After a hearing on February 2, 2021, the trial court concluded that Sims was not competent to stand trial because he was not "currently capable of assisting counsel in preparing a legal defense." (Doc. No. 152).
{¶8} On April 26, 2021, because the time-limit for treatment was approaching, the State filed a motion requesting that the trial court retain jurisdiction over Sims and commit him for mental-health treatment under R.C. 2945.39(A)(2). See Williams , 126 Ohio St.3d 65, 2010-Ohio-2453, 930 N.E.2d 770, at ¶ 12 ().
{¶9} After a hearing on May 12, 2021, the trial court determined on May 24, 2021 that Sims was not competent to stand trial and that the maximum time permitted under R.C. 2945.38(C) for treatment to restore competency expired. (Doc. No. 163). Consequently, the trial court granted the State's motion after concluding that the State proved by clear and convincing evidence that Sims committed the offenses alleged in the indictment and that Sims is a mentally ill person subject to court order.2 As a result, the trial court retained jurisdiction over Sims and committed him to Twin Valley Behavioral Healthcare-Moritz under R.C. 2945.40(F) until a maximum date of May 12, 2051. See R.C. 2945.401(J)(1) ; R.C. 2929.14(A)(1), (2). Importantly, the trial court concluded in its journal entry that Sims "confirmed to the Court that he was still representing himself in this matter." (Doc. No. 163).
{¶10} On October 14, 2021, Sims filed his notice of appeal. He raises three assignment of error for our review. For ease of our discussion, we will be begin by addressing Sims's third assignment of error, followed by his second assignment of error, then his first assignment of error.
Because the evidence did not support the trial court's findings the trial court abused its discretion in finding Appellant incompetent to stand trial, in violation of Appellant's right to Due Process under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 16 of the Ohio Constitution.
{¶11} In his third assignment of error, Sims argues that the trial court abused its discretion by determining that he was not competent to stand trial. Specifically, Sims contends that the record reflects that he has the capacity to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him and that he is capable of assisting in preparing his defense.
{¶12} " ‘A trial court's decision on competency will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.’ " State v. Adkins , 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-19-71, 2020-Ohio-6799, 2020 WL 7490078, ¶ 10, quoting State v. Lechner , 4th Dist. Highland No. 19CA3, 2019-Ohio-4071, 2019 WL 4883373, ¶ 24. "An abuse of discretion is more than a mere error in judgment; it suggests that a decision is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. State v. Adams , 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157-158, 404 N.E.2d 144 (1980).
{¶13} " ‘A criminal defendant's competency to stand trial * * * is a question of fact.’ " State v. Stutzman , 9th Dist. Wayne No. 18AP0038, 2019-Ohio-1695, 2019 WL 1998363, ¶ 13, quoting State v. Roberts , 137 Ohio St.3d 230, 2013-Ohio-4580, ¶ 92, 998 N.E.2d 1100. "Deference, therefore, generally ought to be afforded to a trial court's competency determination, as ‘factual determinations are best left to those who see and hear what goes on in the courtroom.’ " Id. , quoting State v. Cowans , 87 Ohio St.3d 68, 84, 717 N.E.2d 298 (1999), and citing State v. Neyland , 139 Ohio St.3d 353, 2014-Ohio-1914, 12 N.E.3d 1112, ¶ 59 (). "Therefore, an appellate court will not overrule the trial court's competency determination if the record contains credible, reliable evidence in support of the trial court's determination that the defendant understood the nature and objective of the proceedings against him." State v. Heatherington , 5th Dist. Richland No. 2021 CA 0021, 2022-Ohio-1375, 2022 WL 1210563, ¶ 33, citing State v. Williams , 23 Ohio St.3d 16, 19, 490 N.E.2d 906 (1986). See also Stutzman at ¶ 13 (), quoting State v. Were , 118 Ohio St.3d 448, 2008-Ohio-2762, 890 N.E.2d 263, ¶ 46.
{¶14} "Due process requires a criminal defendant be competent to stand trial." Adkins at ¶ 11, citing State v. Berry , 72 Ohio St.3d 354, 359, 650 N.E.2d 433 (1995). " ‘It has long been accepted that a person who 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.’ " Id. , quoting Drope v. Missouri , 420 U.S. 162, 171, 95 S.Ct. 896, 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975). Thus, convicting an accused while he or she is considered to be legally incompetent violates the accused's due-process rights. Id.
{¶15} "The United States Supreme Court established the test for competency and requires the trial court to determine if an accused ‘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.’ " (Emphasis added.) Id. at ¶12, quoting Dusky v. United States , 362 U.S. 402, 80 S.Ct. 788, 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960). See also State v. Lawson , 165 Ohio St.3d 445, 2021-Ohio-3566, 179 N.E.3d 1216, ¶ 50 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial