[Cite as State v. Adkins, 2022-Ohio-4760.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT ALLEN COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 1-19-71
v.
CLOIS-RAY H. ADKINS, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Allen County Common Pleas Court Trial Court No. CR 2017 0290
Judgment Reversed and Cause Remanded
Date of Decision: December 29, 2022
APPEARANCES:
F. Stephen Chamberlain for Appellant
Jana E. Emerick for Appellee Case No. 1-19-71
ZIMMERMAN, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Clois-Ray H. Adkins (“Adkins”), appeals the
June 13, 2019 judgment entry of conviction and sentencing of the Allen County
Common Pleas Court after Adkins was found guilty (by a jury) of murder in
violation of R.C. 2903.02(A), an unclassified felony. For the reasons that follow,
we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this matter for a new trial or
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
{¶2} This case stems from a September 3, 2017 altercation between Adkins
and Robert L. Smith, II (“Smith”) wherein Adkins hit Smith in the head with a tree
branch and killed him.
{¶3} On October 17, 2017, Adkins was indicted by the Allen County Grand
Jury on four criminal counts: Count One, Murder in violation of R.C. 2903.02(A),
(D) and R.C. 2929.02(B), an unclassified felony; Count Two, Murder in violation
of R.C. 2903.02(B), (D) and R.C. 2929.02(B), an unclassified felony; Count Three,
Felonious Assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1), (D)(1)(a), a second-degree
felony; and Count Four, Felonious Assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2),
(D)(1)(a), also a second-degree felony.
{¶4} On October 30, 2017, Adkins appeared for arraignment and entered
pleas of not guilty. However, on January 5, 2018, Adkins trial counsel filed a
written plea of not guilty by reason of insanity under Crim.R. 11(A) and a motion
-2- Case No. 1-19-71
suggesting Adkins was not competent to stand trial. Thereafter, the trial court
ordered that Adkins undergo a competency-to-stand-trial examination under R.C.
2945.371(G)(3) and sanity-at-the-time-of-the-offense examination under R.C.
2945.371(G)(4).1 A competency hearing was scheduled on March 13, 2018.2
However, Adkins’s trial counsel requested a second-competency-to-stand-trial
examination and sanity-at-the-time-of-the-offense examination, which the trial
court ordered.
{¶5} On August 13, 2018, the trial court scheduled the matter for a
competency hearing to address the conflicting competency-evaluation reports.
Because the trial court did not conduct the competency hearing ten days after the
filing of the report of the competency evaluation under R.C. 2945.37(C), the State
and defense requested additional evaluations for competency to stand trial, which
the trial court granted. Ultimately, the trial court held a competency hearing
determining
that [Adkins] has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that [he] does not have sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding or that he is incapable of assisting counsel in his own defense.
1 The trial court vacated the original trial date and authorized payment for mental-health records. Notably, R.C. 2945.371 was amended by the General Assembly in August 2021; however, the trial court proceeded under the version of the statute in effect at the time that Adkins committed the offenses at issue in this case. See R.C. 2945.371(G)(3), (4) (Oct. 12, 2016 to Aug. 2, 2021) (current version at R.C. 2945.371(H)(3), (4) (Aug. 3, 2021)). 2 In our review of the record, it is unclear whether the parties appeared for the scheduled hearing and what (if anything) transpired.
-3- Case No. 1-19-71
(Doc. No. 65); (See Doc. No. 154).
{¶6} Thereafter, Adkins filed a motion with the trial court requesting the
applicability of the amended version of R.C. 2901.05(B), Ohio’s self-defense law,
in this case, which the State opposed. The trial court determined that the amended
version of R.C. 2901.05(B) was not applicable to Adkins’s case because the indicted
offenses occurred prior to the effective date of the self-defense-law amendments.3
{¶7} After a jury trial on June 11 and 12, 2019, the jury found Adkins guilty
of all four counts in the indictment. For sentencing, the trial court merged Counts
One, Two, Three, and Four, and the State elected to proceed on the Murder charge
under Count One. Pursuant to the State’s election, the trial court sentenced Adkins
to serve fifteen years to life in prison, a mandatory term.4 The judgment entry of
sentencing was filed on June 13, 2019.
{¶8} Thereafter, Adkins filed his notice of appeal on November 25, 2019 in
this court, and raised the following three assignments of error for our review.5
3 Subsequent to the indictment in this case, R.C. 2901.05 was amended to require the “the prosecution [to] prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused person did not use the force in self-defense, defense of another, or defense of that person’s residence, as the case may be.” R.C. 2901.05(B)(1) (Mar. 28, 2019 to Apr. 5, 2021) (current version R.C. 2901.05(B)(1) (Apr. 6, 2021)). 4 The trial court also ordered that Adkins pay a $25.00 application fee to the Clerk of Court under R.C. 120.36 for the appointment of counsel; that he pay court costs; however, the trial court suspended payment of those costs with no future date specified; and that Adkins be transported to the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“DRC”) receiving jail-time credit for 648-days since September 3, 2017 together with future days while he awaited transport to DRC. 5 Adkin’s trial counsel sought leave to file a delayed appeal under App.R. 5 from us on the basis that he had become ill and had been hospitalized for 70 days following the sentencing hearing and after agreeing with Adkins to ensure that timely notice of appeal was filed, which we granted on December 4, 2019.
-4- Case No. 1-19-71
Assignment of Error I
The trial court violated appellant’s rights to the due process of law under both the state and federal constitution constitutional [sic] by requiring him stand trial while incompetent.
Assignment of Error II
Appellant was deprived of a fair trial when the trial court instructed the jury that appellant had the burden of proving self- defense.
Assignment of Error III
Appellant’s convictions were not supported by the weight of the evidence on the issue of self-defense.
{¶9} On December 21, 2020, we overruled Adkins’s assignments of error in
State v. Adkins, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-19-71, 2020-Ohio-6799 and affirmed the
judgment of the trial court.
{¶10} On December 23, 2020, Adkins filed a motion to certify a conflict to
the Ohio Supreme Court, which we denied on January 26, 2021.
{¶11} Then, on July 21, 2022, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued a decision
in State v. Brooks, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2022-Ohio-2478, evaluating the issue of
whether “legislation that shifts the burden of proof on self-defense to the
prosecution * * * appl[ies] to all subsequent trials even when the alleged offenses
occurred prior to the effective date of the act[.]” Id. at ¶ 1, 21. The Supreme Court
held that the amended version of R.C. 2901.05 applies “to all trials conducted on or
after its effective date” regardless of when the underlying criminal conduct
-5- Case No. 1-19-71
occurred. Id. at ¶ 2.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Adkins, 2022-Ohio-4760.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT ALLEN COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 1-19-71
v.
CLOIS-RAY H. ADKINS, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Allen County Common Pleas Court Trial Court No. CR 2017 0290
Judgment Reversed and Cause Remanded
Date of Decision: December 29, 2022
APPEARANCES:
F. Stephen Chamberlain for Appellant
Jana E. Emerick for Appellee Case No. 1-19-71
ZIMMERMAN, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Clois-Ray H. Adkins (“Adkins”), appeals the
June 13, 2019 judgment entry of conviction and sentencing of the Allen County
Common Pleas Court after Adkins was found guilty (by a jury) of murder in
violation of R.C. 2903.02(A), an unclassified felony. For the reasons that follow,
we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this matter for a new trial or
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
{¶2} This case stems from a September 3, 2017 altercation between Adkins
and Robert L. Smith, II (“Smith”) wherein Adkins hit Smith in the head with a tree
branch and killed him.
{¶3} On October 17, 2017, Adkins was indicted by the Allen County Grand
Jury on four criminal counts: Count One, Murder in violation of R.C. 2903.02(A),
(D) and R.C. 2929.02(B), an unclassified felony; Count Two, Murder in violation
of R.C. 2903.02(B), (D) and R.C. 2929.02(B), an unclassified felony; Count Three,
Felonious Assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1), (D)(1)(a), a second-degree
felony; and Count Four, Felonious Assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2),
(D)(1)(a), also a second-degree felony.
{¶4} On October 30, 2017, Adkins appeared for arraignment and entered
pleas of not guilty. However, on January 5, 2018, Adkins trial counsel filed a
written plea of not guilty by reason of insanity under Crim.R. 11(A) and a motion
-2- Case No. 1-19-71
suggesting Adkins was not competent to stand trial. Thereafter, the trial court
ordered that Adkins undergo a competency-to-stand-trial examination under R.C.
2945.371(G)(3) and sanity-at-the-time-of-the-offense examination under R.C.
2945.371(G)(4).1 A competency hearing was scheduled on March 13, 2018.2
However, Adkins’s trial counsel requested a second-competency-to-stand-trial
examination and sanity-at-the-time-of-the-offense examination, which the trial
court ordered.
{¶5} On August 13, 2018, the trial court scheduled the matter for a
competency hearing to address the conflicting competency-evaluation reports.
Because the trial court did not conduct the competency hearing ten days after the
filing of the report of the competency evaluation under R.C. 2945.37(C), the State
and defense requested additional evaluations for competency to stand trial, which
the trial court granted. Ultimately, the trial court held a competency hearing
determining
that [Adkins] has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that [he] does not have sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding or that he is incapable of assisting counsel in his own defense.
1 The trial court vacated the original trial date and authorized payment for mental-health records. Notably, R.C. 2945.371 was amended by the General Assembly in August 2021; however, the trial court proceeded under the version of the statute in effect at the time that Adkins committed the offenses at issue in this case. See R.C. 2945.371(G)(3), (4) (Oct. 12, 2016 to Aug. 2, 2021) (current version at R.C. 2945.371(H)(3), (4) (Aug. 3, 2021)). 2 In our review of the record, it is unclear whether the parties appeared for the scheduled hearing and what (if anything) transpired.
-3- Case No. 1-19-71
(Doc. No. 65); (See Doc. No. 154).
{¶6} Thereafter, Adkins filed a motion with the trial court requesting the
applicability of the amended version of R.C. 2901.05(B), Ohio’s self-defense law,
in this case, which the State opposed. The trial court determined that the amended
version of R.C. 2901.05(B) was not applicable to Adkins’s case because the indicted
offenses occurred prior to the effective date of the self-defense-law amendments.3
{¶7} After a jury trial on June 11 and 12, 2019, the jury found Adkins guilty
of all four counts in the indictment. For sentencing, the trial court merged Counts
One, Two, Three, and Four, and the State elected to proceed on the Murder charge
under Count One. Pursuant to the State’s election, the trial court sentenced Adkins
to serve fifteen years to life in prison, a mandatory term.4 The judgment entry of
sentencing was filed on June 13, 2019.
{¶8} Thereafter, Adkins filed his notice of appeal on November 25, 2019 in
this court, and raised the following three assignments of error for our review.5
3 Subsequent to the indictment in this case, R.C. 2901.05 was amended to require the “the prosecution [to] prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused person did not use the force in self-defense, defense of another, or defense of that person’s residence, as the case may be.” R.C. 2901.05(B)(1) (Mar. 28, 2019 to Apr. 5, 2021) (current version R.C. 2901.05(B)(1) (Apr. 6, 2021)). 4 The trial court also ordered that Adkins pay a $25.00 application fee to the Clerk of Court under R.C. 120.36 for the appointment of counsel; that he pay court costs; however, the trial court suspended payment of those costs with no future date specified; and that Adkins be transported to the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“DRC”) receiving jail-time credit for 648-days since September 3, 2017 together with future days while he awaited transport to DRC. 5 Adkin’s trial counsel sought leave to file a delayed appeal under App.R. 5 from us on the basis that he had become ill and had been hospitalized for 70 days following the sentencing hearing and after agreeing with Adkins to ensure that timely notice of appeal was filed, which we granted on December 4, 2019.
-4- Case No. 1-19-71
Assignment of Error I
The trial court violated appellant’s rights to the due process of law under both the state and federal constitution constitutional [sic] by requiring him stand trial while incompetent.
Assignment of Error II
Appellant was deprived of a fair trial when the trial court instructed the jury that appellant had the burden of proving self- defense.
Assignment of Error III
Appellant’s convictions were not supported by the weight of the evidence on the issue of self-defense.
{¶9} On December 21, 2020, we overruled Adkins’s assignments of error in
State v. Adkins, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-19-71, 2020-Ohio-6799 and affirmed the
judgment of the trial court.
{¶10} On December 23, 2020, Adkins filed a motion to certify a conflict to
the Ohio Supreme Court, which we denied on January 26, 2021.
{¶11} Then, on July 21, 2022, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued a decision
in State v. Brooks, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2022-Ohio-2478, evaluating the issue of
whether “legislation that shifts the burden of proof on self-defense to the
prosecution * * * appl[ies] to all subsequent trials even when the alleged offenses
occurred prior to the effective date of the act[.]” Id. at ¶ 1, 21. The Supreme Court
held that the amended version of R.C. 2901.05 applies “to all trials conducted on or
after its effective date” regardless of when the underlying criminal conduct
-5- Case No. 1-19-71
occurred. Id. at ¶ 2. In its analysis, the court concluded that the amended statute
should apply since the language related to the date of the trial, rather than the date
the offense was committed. Id. at ¶ 23.
{¶12} Following the announcement of Brooks, Adkins filed a motion for
leave to file a delayed application for reconsideration under App.R. 26(A)(1), citing
Brooks, which the State opposed. On December 9, 2022, we granted Adkins request
for leave and vacated the opinion and final judgment issued in Adkins, 2020-Ohio-
6799. Thereafter, we granted Adkins’s application for reconsideration and
reinstated his appeal for a determination on the merits.
{¶13} We begin by addressing Adkins’s second assignment of error followed
by his first and third assignments of error, which we will address together.
Appellant was deprived of a fair trial when the trial court instructed the jury that appellant had the burden of proving self- defense.
{¶14} Adkins’s second assignment of error is sustained since Adkins was
deprived of a fair trial when the trial court improperly instructed the jury as to the
burden of proof on self-defense and because he was entitled to the jury instruction
requiring the prosecution to prove he did not act in self-defense for the reasons set
forth in State v. Brooks, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2022-Ohio-2478.
-6- Case No. 1-19-71
The trial court violated appellant’s rights to the due process of law under both the state and federal constitution constitutional [sic] by requiring him stand trial while incompetent.
Appellant’s convictions were not supported by the weight of the evidence on the issue of self-defense.
{¶15} Based upon our disposition of Adkins’s second assignment of error,
Adkins’s first and third assignments of error are moot. See App.R. 12(A)(1)(c). See
also State v. Gideon, 165 Ohio St.3d 156, 2020-Ohio-6961, ¶ 26-27, citing App.R.
12(A)(1)(c). Consequently, we decline to address them.
{¶16} Having found error prejudicial to the appellant herein in the particulars
assigned and argued in his second assignment of error and having found that
appellant’s first and third assignments of error have been rendered moot by our
disposition of appellant’s second assignment of error, we reverse the judgment of
the trial court and remand this matter for a new trial or other further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
MILLER and SHAW, J.J., concur.
/jlr
-7-