Title: State v. Scott

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State v. Scott, 91 Ohio St.3d 1237, 2001-Ohio-61.] 
 
 
THE STATE OF OHIO v. SCOTT. 
[Cite as State v. Scott (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 1237.] 
Criminal procedure — Death penalty — Execution date set by Supreme Court of 
Ohio — Motion for funds for independent psychiatrist to determine 
competency to be executed filed by defendant in federal court — State’s 
motion to require trial court to complete statutorily prescribed process 
for competency review so that defendant can be executed on date set by 
Supreme Court denied. 
(No. 85-1209 — Submitted March 13, 2001 — Decided March 21, 2001.) 
ON MOTION FOR STATUS CONFERENCE AND SCHEDULING ORDER. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Respondent, Jay D. Scott, was convicted of the aggravated 
murder of Vinnie M. Prince and sentenced to death.  Scott appealed, and the court 
of appeals affirmed his conviction and sentence.  State v. Scott (May 23, 1985), 
Cuyahoga App. No. 48609, unreported, 1985 WL 9047.  We also affirmed Scott’s 
conviction and death sentence.  (1986), 26 Ohio St.3d 92, 26 OBR 79, 497 N.E.2d 
55. 
 
Scott’s state postconviction proceedings concluded on January 12, 1994, 
when we refused to accept jurisdiction.  (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 1426, 624 N.E.2d 
1064, certiorari denied, Scott v. Ohio (1994), 512 U.S. 1213,  114 S.Ct. 2694, 129 
L.Ed.2d 825. Finally, the federal courts denied Scott’s application for habeas 
relief in Scott v. Mitchell (C.A.6, 2000), 209 F.3d 854, certiorari denied (2000), 
___ U.S. ___, 121 S.Ct. 588, 148 L.Ed.2d 503.  We last set Scott’s execution date 
for April 17, 2001.  State v. Scott (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 1424, 741 N.E.2d 535. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2 
 
The cause is now before this court upon a motion by the Ohio Attorney 
General to direct the common pleas court to hold a status conference and issue a 
scheduling order with respect to Scott’s competency to be executed. 
 
On February 14, 2001, Scott’s attorneys filed a motion in federal court 
seeking funds for an independent psychiatrist to determine Scott’s competency to 
be executed.  See, generally, Ford v. Wainwright (1986), 477 U.S. 399, 106 S.Ct. 
2595, 91 L.Ed.2d 335.  The state claims that it expects Scott to initiate an inquiry 
into his competency prior to his scheduled execution date of April 17.  The state 
seeks to require the trial court to complete the statutorily prescribed process for 
competency review so that Scott can be executed on April 17. 
 
The state argues that State v. Steffen (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 399, 639 
N.E.2d 67, sets forth our authority to fashion the relief it seeks in this case.  In 
Steffen, we recognized that when a criminal defendant has exhausted his statutory 
and Murnahan1 appeals in state court, any further action a defendant files in a 
state court is likely to be interposed for delay and would constitute an abuse of the 
court system.  Id. at 412, 639 N.E.2d at 77.  However, Steffen has no direct 
application to this case.  Questioning a defendant’s competency to be executed 
does not involve repeated direct or collateral attacks on the defendant’s conviction 
or sentence, the issue that Steffen concerned. 
 
R.C. 2949.28 and 2949.29 specify procedures for reviewing the sanity of a 
convict sentenced to death.  This review can be initiated by “[t]he warden or the 
sheriff having custody of the convict, the convict’s counsel, or a psychiatrist or 
psychologist who has examined the convict.”  R.C. 2949.28(B)(1). 
 
R.C. 2949.28 and 2949.29 set forth no deadlines for filing a notification of 
a convict’s apparent insanity.  Those statutes neither authorize nor contemplate 
the state’s request to accelerate the specified procedures.  Moreover, R.C. 2949.28 
January Term, 2001 
 
3 
and 2949.29 provide the exclusive statutory framework to follow if an issue arises 
concerning a convict’s competency to be executed.  We continue to have the 
responsibility to review and decide any request for a stay of execution in such 
cases.  See R.C. 2949.28(B)(4). 
 
Thus, the state’s request is premature. In making their request for funding 
to hire a psychiatrist, Scott’s attorneys are not asserting his insanity.  Moreover, 
since no notice of apparent insanity has been given, there is no case pending 
before the trial court that can be accelerated. 
 
Moreover, there is no need to artificially speed up competency 
proceedings, should there be any.  R.C. 2949.28(B)(3) contemplates prompt 
resolution of competency proceedings.  The statute requires the trial court’s final 
decision on competency “no later than sixty days from the date of the notice.”  
Further, if the date set for execution passes, R.C. 2949.29(B) accelerates 
appointment of a new execution date “effective fifteen days from the date of the 
entry of the judge’s findings in the hearing” if a convict is found competent to be 
executed. 
 
For the foregoing reasons, the motion is denied. 
Motion denied. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, David M. Gormley, State 
Solicitor, James V. Canepa, Assistant Attorney General; William D. Mason, 
Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and L. Christopher Frey, Assistant 
Prosecuting Attorney, for movant, the state of Ohio. 
                                                                                                                   
1.  State v. Murnahan (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 60, 584 N.E.2d 1204. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4 
 
Gold, Schwartz & Co., L.P.A., and John S. Pyle; Law Office of Timothy 
Farrell Sweeney and Timothy F. Sweeney, for respondent, Jay D. Scott. 
__________________