[Cite as State v. Morris, 2013-Ohio-1033.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 98591
STATE OF OHIO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
RICHARD L. MORRIS
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT:
REVERSED AND REMANDED
Criminal Appeal from the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case Nos. CR-547947, CR-551411, CR-558239, and CR-561093
BEFORE: Rocco, J., Celebrezze, P.J., and McCormack, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: March 21, 2013
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Susan J. Moran
55 Public Square
Suite 1616
Cleveland, Ohio 44113-1901
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: Norman Schroth
Assistant County Prosecutor
Justice Center - 8th Floor
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
KENNETH A. ROCCO, J.:
{¶1} In this consolidated appeal involving four separate indictments,
defendant-appellant Richard L. Morris (“Morris”) appeals from his conviction and
30-month sentence for aggravated assault, interference of custody, contributing to
unruliness or delinquency, attempted tampering with records, and identity fraud. Morris
argues that his guilty plea is void because the trial court failed to conduct a competency
hearing prior to accepting Morris’s plea. We agree. Accordingly, we reverse the trial
court’s final judgment and remand with instructions to conduct a competency hearing.
{¶2} At a pretrial hearing held on August 18, 2011, Morris was referred to the
court psychiatric clinic to determine whether he was competent to stand trial. On
September 30, 2011, the court went on the record disclosing that Dr. Barach of the court’s
psychiatric clinic did not make a direct diagnosis within a reasonable degree of medical
certainty regarding Morris’s competency to stand trial, but had instead offered that Morris
was malingering.
{¶3} At the September 30, 2011 hearing, the trial court ordered Morris transferred
to Northcoast Behavioral Health Care (“Northcoast”) for 20 days for a competency
examination. The trial court stated on the record that it would await a report from
Northcoast before setting any further dates. According to the docket, the matter was
continued twice in October. Then, on November 2, 2011, the docket indicates that
Morris was reordered to Northcoast for a 20-day assessment to determine competency.
{¶4} Although neither the docket nor the transcript contain any information
pertaining to the status of Morris’s competency, on May 21, 2012, Morris entered into a
plea agreement with the prosecutor. On May 25, 2012, the trial court imposed a
30-month sentence on the counts to which Morris pleaded guilty. Morris then filed his
notice of appeal.
{¶5} Morris presents two assignments of error for review.
I. The trial court erred and rendered the appellant’s plea void when it
proceeded to disposition without holding a hearing on the issue of
defendant’s competency as was required by statute and the state and federal
constitutions.
II. The trial court erred to the prejudice of appellant when it failed to
comply with the guidelines set forth in R.C. 2929.13(B)(1)(a)(i)-(iii), in
violation of Ohio law and appellant’s right to due process of law, and his
right against imposition of excessive sentences secured by the Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Art. I, § 9 of the Ohio
Constitution.
{¶6} In his first assignment of error, Morris argues that the trial court erred in
accepting Morris’s guilty plea without first conducting a competency hearing. We agree.
{¶7} It is well settled that a trial court must hold a competency hearing if the
issue of competency is raised prior to trial. R.C. 2945.37(B); State v. Cruz, 8th Dist. No.
93403, 2010-Ohio-3717, ¶ 13-16. In the trial context, this rule ensures that the trial court
can properly assess whether the defendant can
understand the nature of the proceedings against him and whether the defendant can assist
in his defense. Cruz at ¶ 16. Similarly, where a guilty plea is involved, if the trial court
does not first conduct a competency hearing when competency is in issue, then “the trial
court cannot make a reliable determination of the defendant’s competency to enter a
knowing, intelligent, and voluntary plea under Crim.R. 11.” Id. at ¶ 17. Where the
issue of competency is raised, a trial court commits reversible error by failing to hold a
competency hearing before accepting a defendant’s guilty plea. Id., citing State v. Smith,
8th Dist. No. 92649, 2010-Ohio-154; State v. McGrath, 8th Dist. No. 91261,
2009-Ohio-1361.
{¶8} We have recently reversed convictions and sentences in two cases on facts
analogous to the case at bar. In Cruz, the trial court referred the defendant for a
psychiatric evaluation, but subsequently accepted a guilty plea without first conducting a
competency hearing. The record contained no indication that the defendant’s counsel
stipulated to a finding of competency, nor that the defendant waived the hearing
requirement. Similarly, in State v. Dowdy, 8th Dist. No. 96642, 2012-Ohio-2382, we
reversed a conviction and sentence based on a guilty plea when no competency hearing
was held, the record did not reflect any formal finding or adoption of competency, no
psychiatric report existed in the record despite the trial court’s explicit order that the
report be provided by Northcoast, and there was no stipulation regarding the defendant’s
competency or the results of the defendant’s psychiatric evaluation.
{¶9} In both Cruz and Dowdy, we determined that we could not glean sufficient
information from the record to determine whether the court’s failure to conduct the
hearing was harmless. See State v. Bock, 28 Ohio St.3d 108, 502 N.E.2d 1016 (1986)
(court’s failure to conduct competency hearing harmless error where defendant
participated in trial, offered his own testimony, and the record failed to reveal sufficient
indicia of incompetency).
{¶10} Similarly, in the instant case, the issue of competency was raised prior to
trial. The trial court ordered that Morris undergo a 20-day examination at Northcoast,
but no findings from that examination appear in the record. The record does not indicate
that a competency hearing was held. No order was entered determining Morris’s
competency. Morris did not waive the hearing requirement, and his counsel did not
stipulate to a competency finding. As with Cruz and Dowdy, the record in this case
does not provide sufficient information to determine whether the court’s failure to
conduct the hearing was harmless, and so we decline the state’s invitation to find
harmless error.
{¶11} The trial court could not accept Morris’s guilty plea without first
conducting a competency hearing, because the trial court could not ensure that Morris’s
plea was made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Accordingly, we sustain
Morris’s first assignment of error.
{¶12} In his second assignment of error, Morris argues that the trial court erred in
sentencing him, because it failed to comply with the sentencing guidelines set forth in
R.C. 2929.13(B)(1)(a). Because we are reversing the trial court’s final judgment and
vacating the sentence, we decline to address this assignment of error because it is now
moot.
{¶13} The trial court’s final judgment is reversed, and Morris’s sentence is
vacated. On remand, the trial court shall conduct a competency hearing to determine
whether Morris is competent to enter into a plea agreement and whether he is competent
to stand trial.
It is ordered that appellant recover from appellee costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment into
execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to
Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
____________________________________
KENNETH A. ROCCO, JUDGE
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., P.J., and
TIM McCORMACK, J., CONCUR
State v. Morris
Combined Opinion