State v. Henderson

2025 Ohio 2798

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: August 8, 2025
• Docket: C-240434
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Henderson, 2025-Ohio-2798.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-240434 TRIAL NO. B-8500996 Plaintiff-Appellee, :

vs. :

JEROME HENDERSON, : JUDGMENT ENTRY

Defendant-Appellant. :

This cause was heard upon the appeal, the record, and the briefs. The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded for the reasons set forth in the Opinion filed this date. Further, the court holds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal, allows no penalty, and orders that costs are taxed under App.R. 24. The court further orders that 1) a copy of this Judgment with a copy of the Opinion attached constitutes the mandate, and 2) the mandate be sent to the trial court for execution under App.R. 27.

To the clerk: Enter upon the journal of the court on 8/8/2025 per order of the court.

By:_______________________ Administrative Judge [Cite as State v. Henderson, 2025-Ohio-2798.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-240434 TRIAL NO. B-8500996 Plaintiff-Appellee, :

JEROME HENDERSON, : OPINION

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas

Judgment Appealed From Is: Reversed and Cause Remanded

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: August 8, 2025

Connie M. Pillich, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Philip R. Cummings, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,

Law Office of S. Adele Shank and S. Adele Shank, for Defendant-Appellant. OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

NESTOR, Judge.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Jerome Henderson appeals the judgment of the

Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas dismissing his R.C. 2953.21(A)(1)(a)(iv)

petition for postconviction relief, which sought to commute his death sentence to life

imprisonment under Ohio’s “serious mental illness” law set forth in R.C. 2929.025.

Because we hold that the trial court’s finding that Henderson had refused to submit to

a serious-mental-illness (“SMI”) evaluation is not supported by competent, credible

evidence, we reverse the judgment of the lower court and remand this cause for further

proceedings.

I. Factual and Procedural History

{¶2} In April 1985, Henderson was charged with two counts of aggravated

murder and other offenses in connection with the stabbing death of M.A. Prior to

Henderson’s jury trial, defense counsel requested the appointment of a psychiatrist to

help him prepare for trial. The trial court overruled the motion because Henderson

had not entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity and counsel had not argued

that Henderson was incompetent to stand trial.

{¶3} Following the trial, the jury found Henderson guilty of two counts of

aggravated murder, burglary, and attempted rape. The trial court continued the

matter for sentencing. Prior to sentencing, the court appointed a psychologist to

evaluate Henderson after his counsel had expressed concern about Henderson’s

competency. Dr. Schmidtgoessling evaluated Henderson and concluded that he was

competent to continue with the sentencing proceedings.

{¶4} The sentencing court merged the murder counts and imposed the death

penalty for the aggravated murder of M.A., and imposed separate prison terms for the

other two offenses. Henderson’s execution date is currently scheduled for October 21,

3 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

2026.

{¶5} Henderson unsuccessfully challenged his convictions and death

sentence in a direct appeal to this court and the Ohio Supreme Court. State v.

Henderson, 1987 Ohio App. LEXIS 5519 (1st Dist. Jan. 14, 1987); State v. Henderson,

39 Ohio St.3d 24 (1988).

{¶6} In 1990, Henderson filed a petition for postconviction relief challenging,

among other things, the effectiveness of his trial counsel in investigating and

presenting mitigation evidence at his sentencing. That petition noted counsel’s failure

to engage a forensic psychologist to help prepare mitigation evidence. In support of

his petition, Henderson attached the affidavit of Dr. James Eisenberg, who opined that

Henderson had a paranoid personality disorder. The common pleas court denied the

petition, finding that when the court-appointed psychologist, Dr. Schmidtgoessling,

had examined Henderson she “could find no mental disease.” Henderson appealed

from the denial of his petition, but his appeal was dismissed. See State v. Henderson,

No. C-910146 (1st Dist. Apr. 8, 1991).

{¶7} On April 12, 2022, Henderson, through counsel that had been

appointed to represent him in his federal habeas proceedings, filed a petition for

postconviction relief based on a serious mental illness (“SMI petition”) seeking to

commute his death sentence. See R.C. 2929.025 and 2953.21(A)(1)(a)(iv). In the

petition, Henderson’s counsel indicated that Henderson had not yet been diagnosed

with one of the four diagnoses that qualifies as an SMI, but because the SMI petition

could be amended without leave for 180 days, counsel indicated that she would amend

the petition once Henderson had been evaluated and diagnosed. Henderson’s counsel

also explained that she was filing the petition prior to Henderson’s evaluation because

the Ohio legislature had only provided a one-year window for defendants who had

4 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

previously been sentenced to death to file an SMI petition. Henderson’s petition was

filed on the last day of the one-year grace period. Because counsel argued that

Henderson was “seriously mentally ill and incompetent to make the decisions required

under Ohio’s new SMI law,” counsel asked the court to (1) order Henderson to undergo

an SMI evaluation, or (2) stay the proceedings until Henderson could be restored to

competency and then choose whether to undergo the evaluation.

{¶8} Shortly after Henderson’s counsel had filed the SMI petition,

Henderson moved, pro se, to dismiss it. As detailed in his motion, Henderson believes

that he has an “actual innocence” claim that should be raised in a motion for leave to

file a new-trial motion. He also contends that all his past (and presently appointed)

counsel conspired or are conspiring against him and his efforts to exonerate himself.

{¶9} As a result, in October 2022, the common pleas court ordered

Henderson to undergo a competency evaluation to be performed by Amanda Trice,

Psy.D., who is affiliated with the University of Cincinnati’s Division of Forensic

Psychiatry. After the evaluation was completed, the common pleas court entered an

order on March 14, 2023, finding Henderson “incompetent [to reject the appointment

of counsel] and [ordered that Henderson’s] counsel is to obtain an evaluation to

determine whether Mr. Henderson meets the criteria in R.C. 2929.025(A)(1)(b) to

change his death sentence to life imprisonment under R.C. 2953.21(A)(1)(a)(iv).” Dr.

Trice was appointed to conduct the SMI evaluation but could not complete it because

Henderson would not meet with her.

{¶10} Therefore, on August 1, 2023, Henderson’s counsel moved the court to

order that Henderson’s competency be restored. Counsel argued that Henderson’s

failure to meet with the “mental-health doctor” could not be construed as a waiver or

refusal to submit to an SMI evaluation as he was not only incompetent to make that

5 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

choice, but the record does not support a finding that he in fact knowingly refused the

SMI evaluation. In support of the motion, Henderson submitted Dr. Trice’s affidavit.

{¶11} Dr. Trice attested that she had gone to the prison on July 26, 2023, to

conduct Henderson’s SMI evaluation, but when she arrived, “prison staff informed me

that [Henderson] had declined to meet with me. It was relayed to me by staff that he

chose not to meet with a mental health doctor. No further explanation was given . . .

[and I] could not speak with him.” She also testified that she had reviewed

Henderson’s medical records in preparation for the SMI evaluation, noting that he had

been previously diagnosed with mental disorders and appeared to exhibit

characteristics that arise from an SMI. However, she attested that she could not

complete the SMI evaluation based solely on his medical records and said that she also

needed to meet with him.

{¶12} Henderson’s counsel noted that there was no evidence proving that

Henderson knew why a “mental health doctor” was there to meet with him. She

maintained that he could not have knowingly waived or refused an SMI evaluation if

he was unaware that the mental-health professional was there for that purpose.

Further, Henderson’s counsel presented evidence (prison records) that he had

consistently refused mental-health treatment from prison authorities in the past and

that he most likely thought that this was just another instance of the prison offering

mental-health services to an inmate; not a court-ordered SMI evaluation.

{¶13} The State maintained that Henderson’s SMI petition should be

dismissed because under R.C. 2929.025(F)(1), if a person refuses to submit to an SMI

evaluation, the court must find that person “not ineligible” for a sentence of death.

{¶14} In November 2023, the court filed an entry ordering Henderson be sent

to

6 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

the Timothy B. Moritz Forensic Unit of the Twin Valley Behavioral

Healthcare Facility to be restored to competency. Once he is restored,

Henderson will be permitted to return to the court to pursue SMI

proceedings, including being given another opportunity to participate

in an SMI evaluation. If Henderson cannot be restored to competence,

the Court will determine at that time, with input from the parties, the

proper course for these proceedings.

{¶15} Eventually, the common pleas court learned that Henderson could not

be assigned to Twin Valley. There were no open beds and the facility was unable to

take a placement longer than two weeks, and it was not equipped to deal with the

security needs of an inmate on death row. Accordingly, the court ordered, on March

15, 2024, that Henderson be restored to competency by prison representatives within

60 days. The court indicated that if Henderson’s competency could not be restored,

the court was going to dismiss the proceedings over the defense’s objection.

{¶16} On June 25, 2024, the court found Henderson “not ineligible for a

sentence of death due to serious mental illness” because “it is apparent to the Court

that Petitioner continues to refuse to submit to an SMI evaluation and/or competency

restoration efforts.” At a hearing held on June 24, 2024, State’s counsel and

Henderson’s counsel indicated they had both talked to the same person at the prison

and, based on that conversation, counsel reported that someone (Henderson’s counsel

maintains it was not a mental-health professional) went to Henderson’s cell and asked

him if he wanted to be restored to competency and he replied, “No.” Although the

State indicated that it would not object to a successive SMI petition filed by Henderson

if he eventually decided to undergo an SMI evaluation, the court rejected Henderson’s

request to put that agreement in the judgment entry.

7 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

{¶17} Henderson now appeals from the dismissal of his petition.

II. Analysis

{¶18} In a single assignment of error, Henderson maintains that the common

pleas court “erred when it found Henderson’s failure to come out of his cell was a

refusal to submit [to a SMI evaluation] that [effectively] waived his right to purse SMI

relief under R.C. 2929.025 and R.C. 2953.21 when Henderson had already been found

incompetent.”

{¶19} In State v. Fitzpatrick, 2022-Ohio-4381 (1st Dist.), this court discussed

the new SMI law:

Effective April 21, 2021, a person who has been diagnosed with

certain specified mental disorders and meets the statutory criteria is

ineligible for the death penalty. R.C. 2929.025(E)(1). This law was

made retroactive and applies to defendants who already had been

sentenced to death at the time the law became effective. R.C.

2953.21(A)(1)(a)(iv).

...

Under the recently enacted SMI statute, a person has a ‘serious

mental illness’ if (1) he or she has been diagnosed with schizophrenia,

schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, or delusional disorder and (2)

shows by a preponderance of the evidence that at the time of the

aggravated murder, those conditions, while not meeting the standard to

be found not guilty by reason of insanity or the standard to be found

incompetent to stand trial, nevertheless significantly impaired the

person’s capacity to exercise rational judgment with respect to

conforming the person’s conduct to the requirements of the law or

8 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

appreciating the nature, consequences or wrongfulness of the person’s

conduct. R.C. 2929.025 (A) and (D)(1).

R.C. 2953.21(A)(1)(a)(iv) and 2953.21(A)(3)(b) allow a person

convicted and sentenced to death before the effective date of R.C.

2929.025 to file a postconviction petition asking the court to vacate the

sentence up to one year from the effective date of the statute. State v.

Lawson, 165 Ohio St.3d 445, 2021-Ohio-3566, 179 N.E.3d 1216, ¶ 196

(Donnelly, J., concurring). The filing of the SMI petition constitutes a

‘waiver of any right to be sentenced under the law that existed at the

time the offense was committed and constitutes consent to be sentenced

to life imprisonment without parole * * *.’ R.C. 2953.21(A)(3)(b).

Id. at ¶ 1, 7-8.

{¶20} Pertinent to this appeal, R.C. 2929.025(F)(1) provides that if a person

raises the issue of an SMI at the time of the commission of the offense, “the court shall

order an evaluation of the person. . . . If the person refuses to submit to an evaluation

ordered under this division, the court shall issue a finding that the person is not

ineligible for a sentence of death due to serious mental illness.”

{¶21} Here, the court found that Henderson had refused to submit to the SMI

evaluation, and thus determined that he was “not ineligible for a sentence of death due

to serious mental illness” and dismissed his petition. Henderson maintains that this

finding is not supported in the record. We agree.

{¶22} When considering a petition for postconviction relief, “[t]he Supreme

Court of Ohio has stated that we should conduct a ‘plain and adequate review’ based

upon the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.” State v. Fuller, 1995

Ohio App. LEXIS 5701, *5 (4th Dist. Nov. 21, 1995), quoting State ex rel. Kaldor v.

9 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

Court of Common Pleas of Belmont Cty., 9 Ohio St.3d 114 (1984). Accordingly, this

court must assess whether the trial court’s findings are supported by competent,

credible evidence in the record. State v. Gondor, 2006-Ohio-6679, ¶ 58.

{¶23} Briefly, before considering the evidence underlying the lower court’s

finding, we note that the court also dismissed Henderson’s petition based on its

finding that Henderson was refusing competency-restoration efforts. But R.C.

2929.025 does not permit a finding of “not ineligible for the death penalty due to a

serious mental illness” because a petitioner was not cooperating with competency-

restoration efforts. Thus, we hold that dismissing Henderson’s SMI petition on that

basis was erroneous. See State v. Spivey, 2014-Ohio-72 (7th Dist.) (a petitioner does

not have to be competent to proceed with postconviction proceedings).

{¶24} After thoroughly reviewing the record, we hold that the court’s finding

that Henderson refused to submit to an SMI evaluation is not supported by competent,

credible evidence in the record, especially considering that this finding effectively

amounts to a finding that Henderson waived his statutory postconviction right to seek

to have his death sentence commuted to life imprisonment. To effectively waive a

constitutional or statutory right, that waiver must be made knowingly. State v. King,

70 Ohio St.3d 158, 160 (1994), citing Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 529 (1972).

{¶25} To knowingly refuse something, one must know what that something

is. See State v. Drawl, 2018-Ohio-4084, ¶ 55 (noting that “refuse” means that one is

not willing to do “something”). Here, the record is devoid of evidence that Henderson

knew that Dr. Trice was at the prison to meet with him for an SMI evaluation, an

evaluation that could potentially lead to his death sentence being commuted to life in

prison. Dr. Trice testified that she was not allowed to speak with Henderson and thus,

there was no evidence that Henderson had been told Dr. Trice was there to conduct

10 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

the court-ordered SMI evaluation and that Henderson then refused to undergo the

evaluation.

{¶26} Further, the only evidence in the record that the trial court possibly

relied on to find that Henderson had refused to submit to an SMI evaluation was

hearsay testimony from prison staff contained in Dr. Trice’s affidavit. But even the

hearsay testimony did not indicate that Henderson was refusing an SMI evaluation;

only that he did not want to meet with a mental-health worker. Given the significance

of what Henderson was alleged to have refused, there must be some indication in the

record that Henderson was told that Dr. Trice was there specifically to evaluate him

for his SMI petition and the consequence of refusing to forego that evaluation.

{¶27} Because there is no competent, credible evidence in the record to

demonstrate that Henderson knowingly refused to submit to an SMI evaluation, there

was no basis for the court to determine that Henderson was “not ineligible for the

death penalty based on a serious mental illness.” Accordingly, the common pleas court

improperly dismissed Henderson’s petition.

{¶28} Henderson’s single assignment of error is sustained.

III. Conclusion

{¶29} Having sustained the assignment of error, we reverse the lower court’s

judgment dismissing Henderson’s petition and remand the cause for further

proceedings, including another court-ordered SMI evaluation, consistent with this

opinion and the law.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

BOCK, P.J., and MOORE, J., concur.