State v. Barton

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: May 13, 2026
• Docket: 25 CAC 08 0069
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Barton, 2026-Ohio-1758.]

IN THE OHIO COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO, Case No. 25 CAC 08 0069

Plaintiff - Appellee Opinion & Judgment Entry

-vs- Appeal from the Delaware Municipal Court, Case No. 25 CRB 00100 TROY BARTON, Judgment: Affirmed Defendant - Appellant Date of Judgment: May 13, 2026

BEFORE: Craig R. Baldwin, Robert G. Montgomery, and David M. Gormley, Judges

APPEARANCES: Tyler A. Sanders (Assistant City Prosecutor), Delaware, Ohio, for Plaintiff-Appellee; April F. Campbell, Dublin Ohio, for Defendant-Appellant.

Gormley, J.

{¶1} Defendant Troy Barton argues that he was denied the effective assistance of

counsel in the trial court because his trial attorney failed to insist that his competence be

firmly established before Barton pled no-contest to a misdemeanor theft charge. We

conclude that Barton’s lawyer was not ineffective, so we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The Key Facts

{¶2} Barton entered a Meijer store, placed a storage tote in a cart, filled it with

trading cards, and walked out without paying. The loss to Meijer was just under $950,

and the State filed a misdemeanor theft charge against him.

{¶3} In the trial court, Barton’s trial counsel filed a motion questioning Barton’s

competence to stand trial and asking for an evaluation of his present mental condition in

accordance with R.C. 2945.371. The next day, Barton’s counsel filed a supplemental

motion explaining that Barton’s competency had been evaluated in an unrelated criminal case in Licking County, and though Barton had been found competent by the trial court

there, Barton’s counsel in that case was seeking a second opinion. The trial court in our

case then declined to order a competency evaluation.

{¶4} Days later, Barton entered a no-contest plea to the theft charge. At the plea-

change hearing, his attorney noted that Barton was currently undergoing a second

competency evaluation in the Licking County case, but the attorney expressed no

concerns about Barton’s competence to proceed with the plea change in this case.

{¶5} At the plea-change hearing, Barton answered all of the trial judge’s plea-

colloquy questions, and Barton answered affirmatively when the judge asked if he

understood the consequences of pleading no-contest to the theft charge. The trial judge

accepted Barton’s plea and imposed a sentence. Barton now appeals.

Barton’s Ineffective-Assistance Claim Falls Short

{¶6} In his single assignment of error, Barton contends that his trial counsel

should have done more to ensure that Barton was competent to enter a no-contest plea.

{¶7} The Sixth Amendment provides that an accused is entitled to be represented

by an attorney in any criminal case. U.S. Const., amend. VI. For us to overturn a

conviction based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must first

prove that his or her counsel’s performance was deficient. See Strickland v. Washington,

466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). If the defendant is able to make that showing, then he or she,

to prevail on an ineffective-assistance claim, must demonstrate, too, that the attorney’s

deficient performance harmed or prejudiced the defendant in some way. Id.

{¶8} Because this appeal focuses on defense counsel’s handling of the

competency issue, Barton — to prove that his trial attorney was ineffective — “must show

that his counsel failed to perform an adequate investigation of his possible incompetence.” State v. Lawson, 2021-Ohio-3566, ¶ 101. Barton’s lawyer in the trial

court cannot be found to have been ineffective if Barton did not “display sufficient indicia

of incompetency to warrant a competency hearing.” Id. at ¶ 95.

{¶9} First, we are not convinced that Barton’s attorney failed to investigate

Barton’s possible incompetency. The record shows that Barton’s trial counsel did raise

the issue in a motion asking for an evaluation as Ohio law permits, and the lawyer also

filed a supplemental motion providing more details as the lawyer learned them.

{¶10} Second, even were we to find that Barton’s lawyer should have done more,

we cannot say that grounds existed for the trial judge to either order an evaluation or call

a halt to the plea change. After all, a recent evaluation in the Licking County case had

evidently indicated that Barton was currently capable of understanding the proceedings

in his case there and was able to assist his lawyer in his own defense in that case, and

nothing that Barton said or did in court in this case appears to have raised any red flags

about his present mental condition.

{¶11} Several Ohio appellate-court decisions suggest that facts like those in our

case are not sufficient to warrant a competency hearing. See State v. Kendall, 2025-Ohio-

2394, ¶ 21 (3d Dist.) (prior psychiatric hospitalization and use of psychiatric medication

did not constitute sufficient indicia of incompetency); State v. Harris, 2025-Ohio-5074,

¶ 27 (6th Dist.) (history of mental-health problems and drug dependency, standing alone,

did not establish sufficient indicia of incompetency where the defendant otherwise

demonstrated an understanding of the proceedings); State v. Edwards, 2023-Ohio-4173,

¶ 18 (12th Dist.) (chronic mental illness, commission of the offense in a psychiatric unit,

and use of psychotropic medication did not amount to sufficient indicia of incompetency). {¶12} Competence to stand trial is the presumption for persons facing criminal

charges. See State v. Baker, 2022-Ohio-1853, ¶ 35 (5th Dist.). To rebut that presumption,

a defendant must establish incompetency by a preponderance of the evidence. R.C.

2945.37(G). Barton has pointed to nothing in the record — whether from the plea-change

hearing or elsewhere — that overcomes that presumption. On this record, Barton’s trial

lawyer was not ineffective.

{¶13} For these reasons, the judgment of the Delaware Municipal Court is

affirmed. Costs are to be paid by Appellant Troy Barton.

By: Gormley, J.;

Baldwin, P.J. and

Montgomery, J. concur.