State v. Bradley

2013 Ohio 5146
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Bradley. Read the opinion of the Court — 2012 Ohio 2765
Ohio Court of Appeals·Decided November 20, 2013·No. 13 COA 13·Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Bradley, 2013-Ohio-5146.]

COURT OF APPEALS ASHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO JUDGES: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P. J. Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. John W. Wise, J. Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. -vs- Case No. 13 COA 13 MICHAEL H. BRADLEY

Defendant-Appellant OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal Appeal from the Municipal Court, Case No. 13 CRB 306

JUDGMENT: Reversed and Remanded

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: November 20, 2013

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant

MATTHEW J. MALONE LAW OFFICES OF MATTHEW J. MALONE 11-1/2 East Second Street Ashland, Ohio 44805 Ashland County, Case No. 13 COA 13 2

Wise, J.

{¶1} Appellant Michael H. Bradley appeals his sentence entered in the Ashland

County Court of Common Pleas on one count of Domestic Violence, in violation of R.C.

§2919.25(A).

{¶2} Appellee State of Ohio did not file a response brief in this matter.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

{¶3} On March 10, 2010, the Ashland Police Department served a Summons

and Complaint on Defendant-Appellant Michael H. Bradley, charging him with one count

of domestic violence, pursuant to R.C. §2919.25(A), a misdemeanor of the first degree.

{¶4} The Complaint alleged:

{¶5} “The undersigned issuing officer says that the person whose name

appears above did on the 10th day of March, 2013 at 3:30 PM unlawfully and knowingly

cause or attempt to cause physical harm to a family member or household member to

wit: Mr. Michael Bradley poked his father with a baseball bat and struck his mother in

the left arm after a verbal altercation.” (Complaint and Summons, filed March 11, 2013.)

{¶6} At his March 11, 2013 arraignment, Appellant appeared unrepresented by

counsel and entered a plea of no contest to the charge contained in the Summons and

Complaint. (Arraign. T. at 5). After a brief colloquy with Appellant, the trial court

accepted his no contest plea, found him guilty of domestic violence, and ordered a pre-

sentence investigation. (Arraign. T. at 5-10, 14).

{¶7} On April 23, 2013, Appellant appeared for sentencing, again without

counsel. (Sent. T. at 1). The trial court sentenced Appellant to 180 days in the Ashland

County Jail, suspended 150 days while giving credit for time served, placed him on County County, Case No. 3

intensive probation for one year, and ordered him to pay a fine of $150 plus court costs.

(Sent. T. at 13-14).

{¶8} Appellant now appeals, assigning the following errors for review:

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

{¶9} “I. THE ASHLAND, OHIO MUNICIPAL COURT ERRED BY NOT

INQUIRING WHETHER DEFENDANT-APPELLANT WAS ABLE TO OBTAIN

COUNSEL AND THEN IMPOSING A SENTENCE OF CONFINEMENT FOR HIS

UNCOUNSELED NO CONTEST PLEA.

{¶10} “II. THE ASHLAND, OHIO MUNICIPAL COURT ERRED BY NOT

MAKING FURTHER INQUIRY INTO DEFENDANT-APPELLANT'S COMPETENCE

WHERE THERE EXISTED SUFFICIENT INDICIA OF INCOMPETENCE TO ENTER A

PLEA AND THEN BY ACCEPTING DEFENDANT-APPELLANT'S UNCOUNSELED NO

CONTEST PLEA.”

II.

{¶11} For ease of discussion, we shall address Appellant’s assignments of error

out of order.

{¶12} In his Second Assignment of Error, Appellant argues that the trial court

erred in not making further inquiry into his competence before accepting his no contest

plea made without legal representation.

{¶13} The conviction of a defendant who is not competent to enter a plea

violates due process of law. See State v. Skatzes, 104 Ohio St.3d 195, 2004-Ohio-

6391, 819 N.E.2d 215, at ¶ 155, citing Drope v. Missouri (1975), 420 U.S. 162, 171, 95

S.Ct. 896, 43 L.Ed.2d 103, and State v. Berry (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 354, 359, 650 County County, Case No. 4

N.E.2d 433. A trial court possesses no need to sua sponte inquire into a defendant's

competency unless the record contains “ ‘sufficient indicia of incompetence,’ such that

an inquiry * * * is necessary to ensure the defendant's right to a fair trial.” Berry, 72 Ohio

St.3d at 359, quoting Drope, 420 U.S. at 175; see, also, State v. Ahmed, 103 Ohio St.3d

27, 2004-Ohio-4190, 813 N.E.2d 637, at ¶ 65.However, in the absence of evidence to

the contrary, a criminal defendant is rebuttably presumed competent to enter a guilty

plea. See R.C. 2945.37(G); State v. Were, 118 Ohio St.3d 448, 2008-Ohio-2762, 890

N.E.2d 263, at ¶ 45

{¶14} Pursuant to R.C. 2945.37(G), a defendant is presumed competent to

stand trial unless it is proved by a preponderance of the evidence in a hearing that

because of his present mental condition, he is incapable of understanding the nature

and objective of the proceedings against him or of assisting in his defense. “The test for

competency is whether the defendant has a 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 proceedings against him.” In re Kristopher

F., Stark App. No. 2006CA00312, 2007–Ohio–3259, ¶ 25.

{¶15} During Appellant’s arraignment, it was explained to the trial court that the

events leading up to the domestic violence charge were brought on by Appellant’s

failure to take his medication and the parents’ efforts to try to make him take such

medication. A review of the transcript from the arraignment reveals over a dozen

references made regarding Appellant’s failure to take his medication, his mental health,

and the fact that he suffers from schizophrenia. County County, Case No. 5

{¶16} Further, the transcript from the sentencing hearing reveals that the

sentencing hearing had to be postponed due to the fact that Appellant was receiving

treatment in Heartland Behavioral Healthcare center for 40 days. (Sent. T. at 5).

Additionally, much discussion was had regarding Appellant’s mental health, his need for

medication, which would include monthly injections of Haldol, the need for weekly

counseling and monthly psychiatric treatment. (Sent. T. at 7-9) It was also discussed

that Appellant takes Depakote for mood stabilization and Cogentin for the side effects.

(Sent. T. at 10).

{¶17} Based on the record before us, we find there are sufficient indicia of

incompetency to warrant a hearing on the issue of incompetency. “It is settled law that

‘a person whose mental condition is such that he 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.’ ” State v. Rubenstein, 40 Ohio

App.3d 57, 60, 531 N.E.2d 732 (8th Dist.1987), quoting Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S.

162, 171, 95 S.Ct. 896, 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975).

{¶18} Appellant’s Second Assignment of Error is sustained.

I.

{¶19} In his First Assignment of Error, Appellant asserts the trial court violated

his Constitutional right to counsel as well his rights under Crim.R. 11 and 44.

Specifically, Appellant submits the trial court violated his rights by failing to appoint an

attorney for him or having him voluntarily, intelligently, and knowingly waive such right;

by accepting his plea without undertaking a Crim.R. 11 colloquy; and by failing to inquire County County, Case No. 6

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

State v. Bradley, 2013 Ohio 5146 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).

2013 Ohio 5146 (State v. Bradley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Drope v. Missouri
420 U.S. 162 (Supreme Court, 1975)
In Re the Estate of Glen
4 N.E.2d 433 (New York Court of Appeals, 1936)
State v. Rubenstein
531 N.E.2d 732 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1987)
State v. Berry
650 N.E.2d 433 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1995)
State v. Ahmed
103 Ohio St. 3d 27 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2004)
State v. Skatzes
104 Ohio St. 3d 195 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2004)
State v. Were
118 Ohio St. 3d 448 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2008)