[Cite as State v. Cedeno, 2015-Ohio-5412.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION Nos. 102327 and 102328
STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
NOEL CEDENO DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case Nos. CR-12-564978-A and CR-13-580862-A
BEFORE: Keough, P.J., E.T. Gallagher, J., and Stewart, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: December 24, 2015 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT
Robert L. Tobik Cuyahoga County Public Defender By: Jeffrey Gamso Assistant Cuyahoga County Public Defender 310 Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44113
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. McGinty Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: Owen M. Patton Ronni Ducoff Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys The Justice Center, 9th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, P.J.:
{¶1} In this consolidated appeal, defendant-appellant, Noel Cedeno, appeals his
convictions contending that the court erred when it revoked his right to
self-representation and allocution. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
{¶2} In 2011, Cedeno was originally named in a six-count indictment charging him
with sex offenses involving a child under the age of thirteen. The original indictment
and two subsequent indictments were dismissed without prejudice due to inaccuracies
regarding the dates of the alleged offenses. Cedeno was ultimately re-indicted in August
2012 under Case No. CR-12-564978 with eleven charges, including four counts of
importuning, two counts each of gross sexual imposition, rape, kidnapping, and one count
of attempted gross sexual imposition. Most of the counts contained sexually violent
predator and repeat violent offender specifications, and notices of prior convictions.
{¶3} In September 2013 and during the pretrial stages of this case, another victim
under the age of thirteen came forward alleging that Cedeno raped her. As a result,
Cedeno was charged under Case No. CR-13-580862 with one count of rape and
kidnapping. Each count contained various specifications, and notices of prior
convictions. Case Nos. CR-12-564978 and CR-13-580862 were consolidated without
objection.
{¶4} Cedeno subsequently waived his right to a jury trial. During the bench trial,
the state presented to the court testimony from the victims, their friends and family
members, a medical expert, a caseworker, two counselors, and the detective assigned to investigate the cases. Following the close of the state’s case, the state dismissed two
counts of importuning as charged in Case No. CR-12-564978. After hearing testimony
from Cedeno’s witnesses, the trial court denied his renewed Crim.R. 29 motion for
acquittal.
{¶5} In Case No. CR-12-564978, Cedeno was found guilty of two counts of gross
sexual imposition of a child under the age of thirteen, one count of rape of a child under
the age of thirteen, one count of kidnapping a child under the age of thirteen with a sexual
motivation specification, and one count of attempted gross sexual imposition. He was
found not guilty of one count of rape and kidnapping and two counts of importuning. In
Case No. CR-13-580862, the court found Cedeno guilty of one count of rape of a child
under ten years old and one count of kidnapping.
{¶6} Cedeno was sentenced to a mandatory life in prison sentence in Case No.
CR-12-564978, to run consecutively to a mandatory life in prison sentence in Case No.
CR-13-580862. Cedeno appeals, raising two assignments of error.
I. Revocation of Self-Representation
{¶7} On the same day that trial was scheduled to begin on Case No.
CR-12-564978, Cedeno stated in open court that he no longer wanted his attorney to
represent him. The court advised him that the case was going to trial and that he could
either represent himself or have another attorney appointed. Cedeno requested “another
attorney to be assigned.” (Tr. 9.) He further stated, “[I] deny consent to go to a bench
trial or a jury trial.” (Tr. 10.) The trial court stated that his request for new counsel was “sounding * * * more and more like [Cedeno was] trying simply to delay these
proceedings by waiting until the day before trial to tell us that you want a different
attorney.” (Tr. 18.) The state agreed that this was a stall tactic and objected to the
appointment of new counsel. Nevertheless, the trial court indicated it would appoint
Cedeno new counsel and continue the matter for a pretrial.
{¶8} In an October 2012 pretrial, Cedeno rejected the services of newly appointed
defense counsel and requested to represent himself. Cedeno indicated he filed a waiver
of counsel and a written Crim.R. 44(C) motion, whereby he indicated he was proceeding
pro se, that his attorney was appointed without his consent, that he does not consent to
any continuances or to go to trial because the trial court violated the doctrine of “unclean
hands.” During this hearing Cedeno continued to deny consent to any trials on any cases
before this court. Although the state requested a referral to the court psychiatric clinic,
the court denied the state’s request, stating “[B]eing obstinate is not, in itself, a sign of
mental disease or illness such as to make him incompetent to stand trial.” (Tr. 31-32.)
After advising Cedeno about the perils of representing himself, the trial court allowed
Cedeno to proceed pro se. The court further ordered that the state provide Cedeno with
discovery.
{¶9} At the next pretrial in November, Cedeno refused the state’s discovery
because he did not consent for it to be requested, it was incomplete and untimely. After
Cedeno indicated that he would not accept any discovery from the state, the court relieved
the state of its discovery obligations. Based on the court’s overall observations of Cedeno’s behavior “that appeared to be irrational, bizarre, and inconsistent with his
claimed ability to conduct an effective trial — either to a jury or to the court,” the court
referred Cedeno to the Court Psychiatric Clinic for a competency evaluation to stand trial
and to determine whether he was competent to waive his right to counsel.
{¶10} At the Court Psychiatric Clinic, Dr. George Schmedlen attempted to
evaluate Cedeno. However, according to Dr. Schmedlen’s report, Cedeno declined to
sign any medical releases and did not want to be evaluated. Dr. Schmedlen, after
learning that Cedeno wanted to represent himself at trial and that Cedeno refused to
accept discovery from the state, opined that “Cedeno’s behavior raises a genuine issue as
to his competency to stand trial and his competency to proceed pro-se.” However,
because of Cedeno’s refusal to cooperate, Dr. Schmedlen could not assess his competency
and suggested an inpatient evaluation at Northcoast Behavioral Healthcare. Both the
trial court and the state indicated to Cedeno that a competency evaluation was necessary
to determine whether he could represent himself.
{¶11} Following Dr. Schmedlen’s recommendation, the trial court ordered Cedeno
to undergo a 20-day inpatient evaluation at Northcoast Behavioral Healthcare. In
January 2013, the trial court received a report from Dr. Joy Stankowski who referred to
the findings of Dr. Jason Beaman. Dr. Beaman reported that he attempted to evaluate
Cedeno; however Cedeno refused evaluation because he was competent to stand trial and
to represent himself. Dr. Beaman concluded that it was his opinion that Cedeno’s “lack of cooperation is volitional and does not stem from a mental condition.” Therefore, Dr.
Beaman found Cedeno competent.
{¶12} Troubled that Cedeno was declared competent even though Dr. Beaman did
not conduct an evaluation, the court referred Cedeno to Twin Valley Behavioral
Healthcare for further evaluation. In open court, Cedeno refused an evaluation stating he
has “nothing wrong” with him, he understood “perfect what the charge is,” denied
consent to a lawyer, and demanded to represent himself. (Tr. 119.)
{¶13} In June 2013, the trial court received the competency report prepared by Dr.
Howard Sokolov of Twin Valley Behavioral Healthcare. Dr. Sokolov opined that
Cedeno was both “competent to assist in [his] defense” and “able to voluntarily,
knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel so that he can proceed pro se.”
(Tr. 127.)
{¶14} The trial court then asked Cedeno whether he agreed or stipulated to the
report of Dr. Sokolov and the conclusions contained in the report. Cedeno responded
that “I’m not going to accept it” because he did not consent to the evaluation or for Dr.
Sokolov to make a report. (Tr. 132, 138.)
{¶15} Cedeno again was evaluated in the Court Psychiatric Clinic by Dr. Stephen
Noffsinger who found Cedeno competent to stand trial and to proceed pro se.
Nevertheless, Cedeno refused to stipulate to Dr. Noffsinger’s report because it was
neither signed nor did he give consent to do an evaluation. {¶16} Upon request by the state, the trial court conducted a hearing to hear
testimony from Dr. Noffsinger. During the hearing, Cedeno questioned Dr. Noffsinger
about the report he prepared and how he could “give an evaluation of a person that was
only with [him] for 15 minutes.” (Tr. 192.) Dr. Noffsinger responded:
As I mentioned, I did not do a thorough evaluation based on your decision to not cooperate. You told me several times that you were going to exert your right to not cooperate
So, again, my evaluation is limited to what’s in your records, and then my direct observations of you, but I am able to say with reasonable medical certainty that you do not have a present mental condition that would impair you from understanding the nature and objectives of the court proceedings or in assisting in your defense, or to impair you from intelligently, knowingly, and voluntarily waiving your right to counsel.
(Tr. 192-193.)
{¶17} Even though the court told Cedeno that Dr. Noffsinger concluded he was
competent and he could waive his right to counsel, Cedeno refused to accept Dr.
Noffsinger’s report or opinion because he never gave consent. Based on Cedeno’s
refusal, the trial court indicated it would render a written decision whether it would allow
Cedeno to continue to proceed without counsel.
{¶18} In the trial court’s written decision deciding that Cedeno could not represent
himself in this case, the court stated,
[Cedeno’s] actions have made it clear that he understands neither the charges against him nor even the most basic elements of what it would take to defend against those charges.
*** Notwithstanding the absence of a diagnosis of “severe mental disease,” however, the court finds that the concerns first voiced by Dr. Schmedlen — that the defendant’s behavior “...raises a genuine issue as to his competency to stand trial and competency to proceed pro-se” — are supported, and indeed amplified, by the consistent pattern of behavior by the defendant himself throughout the proceedings * * *.
{¶19} The trial court then listed several instances where Cedeno’s behavior
indicated he could not proceed pro se — (1) he repeatedly denied his consent to either a
bench or jury trial, (2) he rejected the state’s discovery because it was not requested, and
it was incomplete and untimely; but then complained that he did not receive discovery
from the state; (3) he failed to accept the reports of multiple physicians that found him
competent to stand trial and to represent himself because he “did not consent to the
evaluations”; (4) he maintained the cases against him were closed or that the court lacked
jurisdiction over him because he was a “man of flesh and blood”; (5) he referred to the
charges against him as “victimless crimes”; and (6) he filed a number of motions that
were irrelevant to the proceedings.
{¶20} The trial court reasoned that “either (1) [Cedeno] is not competent to
provide himself with even the most rudimentary defense against these very serious
charges, or (2) the defendant is competent, but is acting in this manner with the specific
and perverse intention of making a mockery of these proceedings.” The court concluded
that to secure the fairness of the proceedings and to protect all involved, including the
defendant, the alleged victims, and the community, Cedeno could not continue to proceed
without counsel. {¶21} When the trial court announced its ruling in open court, Cedeno repeated
that he wanted to represent himself. Nevertheless, after the trial court explained its
ruling, Cedeno changed his focus and questioned when his attorney would visit him. At
that point, the court suggested that his appointed counsel in the newly indicted case —
Case No. CR-13-580862 — could also represent him in this case. No objection was
raised by Cedeno.
{¶22} Subsequently, his two cases were consolidated, Cedeno appeared with
counsel, and the cases proceeded to trial. Cedeno did not raise any objection or
complaint about his attorney or that he wanted to proceed pro se during the guilt phase.
After he was convicted in both cases and during sentencing, Cedeno complained that he
was deprived of his right of self-representation.
{¶23} In his first assignment of error, Cedeno contends that the trial court
committed error and denied him his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to
the United States Constitution and under Section 10, Article I of the Ohio Constitution
when it revoked his right to represent himself and ordered that he would have to be
represented by counsel.
{¶24} The Sixth Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant a right to
self-representation. State v. Gibson, 45 Ohio St.2d 366, 345 N.E.2d 399 (1976),
paragraph one of the syllabus, citing Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525,
45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975).
To invoke the right of self-representation, the right to the assistance of counsel must be knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived. A two part inquiry may be required. First, the court must determine the defendant is competent to waive the right to counsel if the court has reason to doubt the defendant’s competence. Second, the court must decide whether the waiver is knowing and voluntarily.
State v. Watson, 132 Ohio App.3d 57, 63, 724 N.E.2d 469 (8th Dist.1998), citing Godinez
v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 400-402, 113 S.Ct. 2690, 125 L.Ed.2d 321 (1993); see also State
v. Cassano, 96 Ohio St.3d 94, 2002-Ohio-3751, 772 N.E.2d 81.
{¶25} Before a trial court permits a criminal defendant to represent himself, a valid
waiver of counsel must appear affirmatively in the record. State v. Irwin, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 90772, 2009-Ohio-848; State v. Martin, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 80198,
2003-Ohio-1499. To establish an effective waiver, “the trial court must make sufficient
inquiry to determine whether a defendant fully understands and intelligently relinquishes
that right.” Irwin at ¶ 34, citing Gibson at paragraph two of the syllabus. Although
there is no prescribed colloquy, it is essential that the trial court ascertains that the
defendant is aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, and that he is
making the decision with his “eyes open.” Irwin at ¶ 35, citing Faretta at 835.
Specifically, the trial court must advise the defendant of the nature of the charges against
him, the range of allowable punishment, the possible defenses, any mitigating
circumstances, and the dangers of self-representation. State v. Ford, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga
No. 86951, 2006-Ohio-3723, ¶ 63, citing State v. Martin, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 80198,
2003-Ohio-1499.
{¶26} In this case and after advising Cedeno of the perils of proceeding pro se, the
trial court initially concluded that Cedeno was competent to waive counsel and to stand trial, and despite the state suggesting otherwise, the court stated that “[B]eing obstinate is
not, in itself, a sign of mental disease or illness such as to make him incompetent to stand
trial.” (Tr. 31-32.) Therefore, the court allowed Cedeno to proceed pro se.
{¶27} However, the right of self-representation is not absolute. Indiana v.
Edwards, 554 U.S. 164, 128 S.Ct. 2379, 171 L.Ed.2d 345 (2008). There will be times
when “the government’s interest in ensuring the integrity and efficacy of the trial will
outweigh the defendant’s interest in acting as his own lawyer.” Martinez v. Court of
Appeal of California, 528 U.S.152, 162, 120 S.Ct.684, 145 L.Ed.2d 597 (2000); United
States v. Young, 199 F.Supp.2d 697 (S.D. Ohio 2001) (the trial court may terminate
self-representation by a defendant who deliberately engages in serious and obstructionist
misconduct).
{¶28} In this case, after the trial court observed Cedeno’s irrational and bizarre
behaviors in open court and through his pro se motions, the court determined that it was
necessary for Cedeno to undergo an evaluation to determine whether he fully understood
and intelligently relinquished his right to counsel. Subsequently, multiple doctors opined
that Cedeno was competent to stand trial and to represent himself at trial.
{¶29} Nevertheless, a trial court may rely on its own observations to determine
whether to grant a defendant’s request to proceed pro se, which may be contrary to the
expert reports. See State v. Were, 118 Ohio St.3d 448, 2008-Ohio-2762, 890 N.E.2d 263
(court may rely on own observations to determine competency). Additionally, the trial
court may consider how an expert reached a conclusion when deciding whether the accept his conclusion. See State v. Nickell, 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-07-015, 2008-Ohio-1571
(reversing a trial court’s determination that the defendant was competent to stand trial
because the sole expert evaluation relied upon by the court was based on a single
interview and stated vague, generalized conclusions and where the defendant’s responses
to the trial court’s questions demonstrated that she lacked competency).
{¶30} In this case, the trial court relied on its own observations and interactions
with Cedeno and the circumstances surrounding the competency evaluations when it
decided to terminate Cedeno’s ability to self-represent. The court noted that despite the
reports concluding Cedeno was competent, no formal and complete evaluation was
conducted because Cedeno refused to cooperate or otherwise participate in the
evaluations. This defiant behavior was evidenced when the court asked Cedeno whether
he accepted the opinion of Drs. Sokolov and Noffsinger that he was competent to stand
trial and to represent himself. Cedeno repeatedly stated that he did not accept or stipulate
to the reports because he “never consented to the evaluations.” This response is clear
that Cedeno did not understand the legal procedures before the court.
{¶31} Cedeno’s misunderstanding of the legal proceedings was further
demonstrated when he repeatedly asserted that he did not consent to any trial before the
court and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because he is “a [m]an of flesh and
blood.” The record also demonstrates that Cedeno did not understand the nature and
severity of his charges through his motion practice by referring to his charges as
“victimless crimes.” {¶32} Our review of the record reveals that Cedeno’s pattern of delay and
manipulation began on September 27, 2012, the day Case No. CR-12-564978 was
originally scheduled for trial, when he first denied “consent to go to trial to a bench trial
or jury,” and expressed dissatisfaction with his attorney and requested that the attorney be
removed from his case. Although the trial court gave Cedeno the option of
self-representation, Cedeno requested that another attorney be appointed, whom he later
stated was “unsatisfactory.”
{¶33} Cedeno’s obstructionist behavior was further evidenced by his refusal to
accept discovery from the state. He initially rejected the state’s discovery because he
“did not request it”; rather, his counsel made the request without consent. Later, he
complained that the state did not comply with the discovery request because it would not
provide him with all discovery and the production was untimely. After Cedeno indicated
he would not accept the state’s discovery, he subsequently filed an “Affidavit of
Fact/Writ of Discovery” where he “demands for Crim.R. 16, discovery.”
{¶34} These obstructionist behaviors, delay tactics, and deliberate manipulations
prompted the trial court to terminate Cedeno’s self-representation. It was readily
apparent that Cedeno would not cooperate in the proceedings, even when the matter was
helpful to Cedeno or was a ruling in his favor. In Faretta, the United States Supreme
Court noted that “[T]he right to self-representation is not a license to abuse the dignity of
the courtroom. Neither is it a license not to comply with the relevant rules of procedural
and substantive law.” Faretta, 422 U.S. at 384, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562. The trial court attempted to protect all parties and the integrity of the proceedings in its
decision, and we find no abuse of discretion.
{¶35} Finally, we note that after trial commenced, Cedeno never renewed his
request to self-represent. In Halder, this court discussed this precise situation — “the
fact that [the defendant] never renewed his desire to represent himself was ‘helpful in
evaluating [his] intended use of the request, i.e., was it a sincere desire to proceed pro se
or manipulative.’” State v. Halder, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 87974, 2007-Ohio-5940, ¶ 59;
State v. Williams, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99859, 2014-Ohio-1057, ¶ 26 (Stewart, J.,
dissenting).
{¶36} Accordingly, after thoroughly reviewing the circumstances of the case and
relevant case law, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking
Cedeno’s right to represent himself. The first assignment of error is overruled.
II. Right to Allocution
{¶37} In his second assignment of error, Cedeno contends that the trial court
committed error and denied him his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to
the United States Constitution, Section 10, Article I of the Ohio Constitution, R.C.
2929.19(A)(1), and Crim.R. 32(A)(1) when it granted the state’s objection and summarily
revoked his right to allocution.
{¶38} Pursuant to Crim.R. 32(A)(1) and R.C. 2929.19(A), the trial court is
required to personally address a defendant and give him an opportunity to speak prior to
sentencing. “‘The purpose of allocution is to allow the defendant an additional opportunity to state any further information which the judge may take into consideration
when determining the sentence to imposed [sic].’” State v. Budreaux, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 63698, 1993 Ohio App. LEXIS 4415, *4 (Sept. 16, 1993), quoting
Defiance v. Cannon, 70 Ohio App.3d 821, 828, 592 N.E.2d 884 (3d Dist.1990). See also
State v. Smith, 2d Dist. Greene No. 94-CA-86, 1995 Ohio App. LEXIS 4960 (Nov. 8,
1995) (finding no error when a court limits a defendant’s presentence statement to those
issues that bear upon the impending punishment and that may carry mitigative weight);
State v. Evans, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 85396, 2007-Ohio-3278.
{¶39} In this case, the trial court afforded Cedeno his right of allocution. The
initial statements made by Cedeno were unrelated to mitigation of his punishment, and
instead focused on extraneous matters that could have been raised during trial. After the
trial court sustained the state’s objection to these unrelated statements, the trial court
directed Cedeno “that the issue before us right now is what you have to say, if anything,
with respect to the sentence that is to be imposed.” (Tr. 928.) The record does not
reflect that Cedeno was interrupted or limited during his second opportunity to address
the court in mitigation.
{¶40} Accordingly, the record demonstrates that the trial court did not interfere
with Cedeno’s rights afforded by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution and by Section 10, Article I of the Ohio Constitution when it limited
Cedeno’s allocution to statements related to the mitigation of punishment. The second
assignment of error is overruled. {¶41} Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common
pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant’s convictions having
been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case remanded to the trial court
for execution of sentence.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of
the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, PRESIDING JUDGE
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., and MELODY J. STEWART, J., CONCUR