[Cite as State v. White, 2023-Ohio-1103.]

COURT OF APPEALS

STARK COUNTY, OHIO

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO

Plaintiff-Appellee

-vsPATRICIA JO WHITE

Defendant-Appellant

JUDGES:

Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.

Hon. John W. Wise, J.

Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. 

Case No. 2022CA00063

O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common 

Pleas, Case No. 2020CR01071

JUDGMENT: Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: March 30, 2023

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant

KYLE L. STONE D. COLEMAN BOND

PROSECUTING ATTORNEY 116 Cleveland Avenue, NW

LISA A. NEMES Suite 600

ASSISTANT PROSECUTING ATTORNEY Canton, Ohio 44702

110 Central Plaza South, Suite 510

Canton, Ohio 44702-1413
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00063 2

Wise, J.

{¶1} Defendant-Appellant Patricia Jo White (“Appellant”) appeals her conviction 

and sentence after a jury trial in the Stark County Court of Common Pleas. Appellee is 

the State of Ohio. The relevant facts leading to this appeal are as follows.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

{¶2} On July 16, 2020, Appellant was indicted by Stark County Grand Jury for 

two counts of Telecommunications Harassment in violation of R.C. §2917.21 and one 

count of Violating a Protection Order in violation of R.C. §2919.27.

{¶3} On July 31, 2020, Appellant entered a plea of not guilty by reason of mental 

insanity, a request for sanity evaluation, and a Motion for Competency.

{¶4} On October 5, 2020, the trial court held a competency hearing. After 

admitting the competency evaluation report into evidence, Dr. Lynn Luna Jones testified 

Appellant was able to understand the nature and objective of the legal proceedings 

against her, but she was unable to adequately assist in her own defense. Appellant had 

trouble identifying details which needed to be discussed with her attorney, and suffered 

from delusional thinking. She believed her former employer, Aultman Hospital, was 

involved in a conspiracy that included abusing patients with electroconvulsive therapy, 

not treating scabies, participating in a pedophilia ring, and that is why she is no longer 

employed there. Appellant believed Aultman Hospital was connected to Jeffrey Epstein’s 

island because of the logo and color scheme. Appellant accused her previous attorney of 

conspiring against her, along with police officers and deputies. Appellant believed 

proceeding to trial would expose Aultman Hospital’s activities. 
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00063 3

{¶5} Dr. Jones also testified Appellant may have a difficult time maintaining 

decorum in the courtroom. During her evaluation, Appellant was prone to outbursts and 

could not restrain herself from constantly claiming people were lying about her.

{¶6} On cross-examination, Dr. Jones testified Appellant received psychiatric 

treatment which ended in 2017. Prior, Appellant was employed as a nurse at Aultman 

Hospital’s psychiatric unit. She emailed to the Hospital’s administration regarding 

mistreatment of patients and human trafficking.

{¶7} After Dr. Jones’s testimony, Appellant submitted a letter to the court stating

that she is not delusional because after her email to hospital administration, they closed 

the psychiatric unit, and that she can assist in her own defense because she had in a 

previous criminal proceeding. Nothing in the record indicated the reasoning or timing of 

the psychiatric unit closing. 

{¶8} The trial court found Appellant was unable to assist in her own defense, but 

her delusional thoughts could be remitted through treatment. The trial court ordered 

Appellant to undergo treatment. 

{¶9} On November 2, 2020, Appellant sent a letter to the trial court raising 

concerns about her counsel; documentation of her email complaints about her employer 

occurred forty-five minutes before the closure of the psychiatric unit.

{¶10} On December 21, 2020, after a hearing on the administration of medical 

treatment, the trial court filed a judgment entry granting the authorization for involuntary 

administration of medication.

{¶11} On April 2, 2021, the trial court found Appellant competent to stand trial 

based upon Heartland Behavioral Healthcare’s report. 
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00063 4

{¶12} On April 14, 2021, the trial court issued an Order directing the evaluation of 

Appellant’s mental condition at the time of the offense. That same day, Appellant filed a 

Motion to Dismiss Count III of the indictment.

{¶13} On May 17, 2021, the trial court granted Appellant’s Motion to Dismiss 

Count III.

{¶14} On July 9, 2021, Appellant filed a Motion to Withdraw her Plea of Not Guilty 

by Reason of Insanity.

{¶15} On September 7, 2021, Appellant filed two Motions in Limine. The first 

requested the trial court to limit the evidence Appellee may introduce relating to Count II 

to communications taking place between December 1, 2019, to April 30, 2020. Appellant 

argued anything before related to a previous criminal charge would be more prejudicial 

than probative. The second requested witnesses be instructed not to mention the CivilStalking Protection Order which was the subject of Count III, which was dismissed. 

Appellant also filed a Motion to Dismiss Count I of the indictment.

{¶16} On September 10, 2021, Appellant’s trial counsel filed a Motion to Withdraw 

as Counsel claiming the attorney-client relationship had fractured beyond repair. 

Appellant had accused trial counsel of threatening her life and filed a police report to that 

affect and that Appellant’s demeanor and communications have deteriorated the past 

month.

{¶17} On September 17, 2021, the trial court ordered a second evaluation of 

Appellant’s competency to stand trial.

{¶18} On September 21, 2021, the trial court granted Appellant’s counsel’s Motion 

to Withdraw as Counsel and appointed new trial counsel.
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00063 5

{¶19} On December 8, 2021, the trial court indicated it received Appellant’s 

Second competency report. However, prior to addressing Appellant’s competency, Judge 

Hartnett disclosed that Appellant had attempted to contact her on social media and made 

several posts on social media tagging the judge’s account. Judge Hartnett found 

Appellant’s conduct created a potential conflict, so she requested the Supreme Court of 

Ohio appoint a visiting judge.

{¶20} On December 13, 2021, Judge Haas was appointed visiting judge.

{¶21} On January 18, 2021, Judge Haas found Appellant competent to stand trial 

based on Psycho-Diagnostic Clinic’s report prepared on December 7, 2021. This report 

was stipulated to by both Appellant and Appellee.

{¶22} On February 7, 2021, the matter proceeded to a jury trial. At trial Appellee 

presented evidence that Appellant sent messages to the victim and her husband 

threatening the victim, with pictures of the victim hanging, calling the victim abusive 

names and alleging victim was involved in conspiracy theories regarding Aultman 

Hospital and the Illuminati.

{¶23} After Appellee rested and out of the presence of the jury, Appellant 

addressed the trial court. Appellant alleged that her trial counsel failed to provide her with 

proof of guilty, copies of text messages she sent to Nichole Weber. Appellant indicated 

her decision to go to trial was based upon her belief no text messages would be entered 

into evidence. Appellant rested without presenting any evidence.

{¶24} Appellant moved for acquittal pursuant to Crim.R. 29, which was overruled 

by the court. 
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00063 6

{¶25} The jury found Appellant guilty on Count I of the indictment and not guilty 

on Count II of the indictment.

{¶26} On February 15, 2022, Appellant’s trial counsel filed a Motion to Withdraw 

as Appellant was accusing her trial counsel of tampering with evidence. The Motion was 

granted.

{¶27} On February 16, 2022, the trial court appointed new counsel for sentencing 

and appeal.

{¶28} On March 7, 2022, Appellant’s sentencing and appellate counsel filed a 

motion to withdraw due to a conflict of interest. New counsel was appointed the same 

day.

{¶29} On March 24, 2022, the trial court sentenced Appellant to two years of 

community control, giving Appellant 307 days credit for time previously served.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

{¶30} Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. She herein raises the following 

three Assignments of Error:

{¶31} “I. THE STATE FAILED TO PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO 

SUSTAIN A CONVICTION AGAINST APPELLANT, AND THE CONVICTION MUST BE 

REVERSED.

{¶32} “II. THE APPELLANT’S CONVICTION IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST 

WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED, AND MUST BE REVERSED.

{¶33} “III. THE APPELLANT WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF 

COUNSEL IN VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHTS UNDER THE 6TH AND 14TH AMENDMENTS 
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00063 7

TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE 1, SECTION 10 OF THE 

OHIO CONSTITUTION.”

I., II.

{¶34} In Appellant’s First and Second Assignments of Error, Appellant argues her 

conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence and is not supported by sufficient 

evidence. We disagree.

{¶35} Sufficiency of the evidence and manifest weight of the evidence are 

separate and distinct legal standards. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380. Essentially, 

sufficiency is a test of adequacy. Id. A sufficiency of the evidence standard requires the 

appellate court to examine the evidence admitted at trial, in the light most favorable to the 

prosecution, to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the 

average mind of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio 

St.3d 259.

{¶36} In contrast to sufficiency of the evidence analysis, when reviewing a weight 

of the evidence argument, the appellate court reviews the entire record, weighing the 

evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and 

determines whether in resolving conflicts of evidence, the jury clearly lost its way and 

created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and 

a new trial ordered. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387.

{¶37} Under a weight of the evidence argument, the appellate court will consider 

the same evidence as when analyzing Appellant’s sufficiency of evidence argument. 

Appellant argues she was convicted on insufficient evidence, and that the jury clearly lost 
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00063 8

its way as their conviction of Appellant based on the total weight of the evidence was a 

manifest miscarriage of justice.

{¶38} R.C. §2917.21(A), in pertinent part, states:

No person shall knowingly make or cause to be made a 

telecommunication, or knowingly permit a telecommunication to be made 

from a telecommunications device under the person’s control, to another, if 

the caller does any of the following:

(A)(1) Makes the telecommunication with purpose to harass, 

intimidate, or abuse any person at the premises to which the 

telecommunication is made, whether or not actual communication takes 

place between the caller and a recipient;

* * *

(5) Knowingly makes the telecommunication to the recipient of the 

telecommunication, to another person at the premises to which the 

telecommunication is made, or to those premises, and the recipient or 

another person at those premises previously has told the caller not to make 

a telecommunication to those premises or to any person at those premises; 

[or]

(6) Knowingly makes any comment, request, suggestion, or proposal 

to the recipient of the telecommunication that is threatening, intimidating, 

menacing, coercive, or obscene with the intent to abuse, threaten, or harass 

the recipient[.]

* * *
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00063 9

(B)(2) No person shall knowingly post a text or audio statement or an 

image on an internet web site or web page for the purpose of abusing, 

threatening, or harassing another person.

{¶39} Appellant argues Appellee failed to meet its burden as they did not prove 

Appellant intended to harass, abuse, or threaten the victim. However, Appellee is not 

required to present direct evidence of a defendant’s intention or purpose to abuse, harass, 

or threaten. State v. Lucas, 7th Dist. Belmont No. 05 BE 10, 2005-Ohio-6786, ¶15. 

{¶40} The evidence shows Appellant attempting to harass the victim through text 

messages, tweets, and Facebook posts alleging conspiracy theories, suggesting victim 

will hang for treason along with pictures of victim hanging for treason, shared details of 

the victim’s personal life. Appellant then started sending messages to the victim’s 

husband saying she could not wait to see the victim in prison, calling her abusive names, 

and to pass this along to her.

{¶41} Additionally, under R.C. 2917.21(A)(5), intent to harass, abuse, or threaten 

is not an element of the crime. “[T]he State must establish the defendant made a 

telecommunication to the recipient and the recipient previously told the defendant not to 

make a telecommunication to the recipient.” City of Delaware v. Boggs, 5th Dist. Delaware 

No. 18 CAC 030027, 2018-Ohio-4677, ¶14.

{¶42} In the case sub judice, the victim testified that Appellant began contacting 

her in 2019. They were initially ignored, but then began at such a frequency the victim 

responded to Appellant to tell Appellant to stop contacting the victim. Appellant stopped 

messaging for a couple months, but eventually started texting the victim again.
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00063 10

{¶43} Therefore, we find Appellee presented sufficient evidence, if believed by a 

jury, that Appellant sent telecommunications to the victim after the victim instructed her 

not to, and that Appellant sent text messages, tweets, and Facebook posts intending to 

harass, abuse, or threaten the victim. Our review of the entire record fails to persuade us 

that the jury lost its way and created a manifest miscarriage of justice. Appellant was not 

convicted against the manifest weight of the evidence.

{¶44} Appellant’s First and Second Assignments of Error are overruled. 

III.

{¶45} In Appellant’s Third Assignment of Error, Appellant argues she was 

deprived of effective assistance of counsel as her trial counsel failed to provide her with 

incriminating evidence before she declined Appellee’s plea offer and by failing to dismiss 

for lack of speedy trial. We disagree.

a. Standard of Review

{¶46} Our standard is set forth in Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 

104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674. Ohio adopted this standard in the case of State v. 

Bradley (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d 373. These cases require a two-pronged 

analysis in reviewing a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel. Id. First, we must 

determine whether counsel’s assistance was ineffective; whether counsel’s performance 

fell below an objective standard of reasonable representation and was violative of any of 

his essential duties to the client. Id. If we find ineffective assistance of counsel, we must 

then determine whether the defense was actually prejudiced by counsel’s ineffectiveness 

such that the reliability of the outcome of the trial is suspect. Id. This requires a showing 
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00063 11

there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional error, the outcome 

of the trial would have been different. Id.

{¶47} Trial counsel is entitled to a strong presumption that all decisions fall within 

the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. State v. Sallie, 81 Ohio St.3d 673, 

675, 693 N.E.2d 267 (1998). Even debatable trial tactics and strategies do not constitute 

ineffective assistance of counsel. State v. Clayton, 62 Ohio St.2d 45, 402 N.E.2d 1189 

(1980).

b. Disclosure of Evidence to be Presented

{¶48} Appellant addressed the trial court on the record and indicated she had not 

been made aware of text messages which would be introduced as evidence. Appellant 

argues this omission caused her to proceed with trial and not accept Appellee’s plea offer. 

However, it is Appellant’s burden to present evidence which meets a minimum level of 

cogency to support his or her claims. State v. King, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2021CA00140, 

2022-Ohio-676, ¶33. A self-serving statement generally does not meet this required 

minimum level of cogency. Id. At ¶26. In addition, the trial court was in the position to 

judge the credibility of the statement Appellant made. The trial court treated the statement 

as a Motion for Mistrial and overruled the motion. Without any other supporting evidence, 

we find Appellant has failed to support her allegation with evidentiary quality materials 

supporting her contention that trial counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard 

of reasonable representation, or that any prejudice arose from this alleged 

ineffectiveness.
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00063 12

c. Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Speedy Trial

{¶49} Next, Appellant argued trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion 

to dismiss for lack of speedy trial. Appellant did not file a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of 

Speedy Trial.

{¶50} “A defendant cannot raise a speedy trial argument for the first time on 

appeal.” State v. Salser, 5th Dist. Richland No. 2019 CA 0087, 2020-Ohio-1000, ¶25, citing 

City of Worthington v. Ogilby, 8 Ohio App.3d 25, 455 N.E.2d 1022 (10th Dist.1982) 

paragraph 2 of the syllabus as quoted in State v. Vance, 5th Dist. Richland No.

2003CA0030, 2004-Ohio-258, ¶45. Based on the face of the record, it appears the case 

was over time. However, the record was not properly developed on this issue. Appellee 

did not have the opportunity or necessity to demonstrate whether any time was tolled 

under the statute. The proper mechanism to develop the record is a post-conviction relief 

petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to file a motion to dismiss for 

lack of speedy trial. Salser at ¶25. This gives Appellant and Appellee the opportunity to 

present evidence and testimony to establish whether or not any time was tolled. Id.

{¶51} “Without an evidentiary hearing before the trial court to develop the record 

on this issue, this Court is unable to review the issue and as such, as noted above, it is 

more appropriate for post-conviction relief. Id. at ¶26.
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00063 13

{¶52} Therefore, Appellant’s Third Assignment of Error is overruled.

{¶53} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of 

Stark County, Ohio, is hereby affirmed.

By: Wise, J.

Baldwin, J., concurs.

Hoffman, P. J., concurs in part and dissents in part.

JWW/br 0324
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00063 14

Hoffman, P.J., concurring in part, and dissenting in part

{¶54} I concur in the majority’s analysis and disposition of Appellant’s first and 

second assignments of error. I further concur in the majority’s analysis and disposition of 

Appellant’s third assignment of error as it pertains to her argument defense counsel was 

ineffective in failing to provide her with incriminating evidence before she declined 

Appellee’s plea offer.

{¶55} However, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision not to address 

on the merits Appellant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to file a 

motion to dismiss for speedy trial. 

{¶56} I begin by conceding I authored one of the two cases cited by the majority, 

State v. Vance, 5th Dist. Richland No. 2003 CA 0030, 2004-Ohio-258, wherein this Court 

held, even where it appears on the face of the record the case was over time, the proper 

mechanism to develop the record regarding possible tolling under the speedy trial statute 

is via a post-conviction relief petition. I cited, as does the majority herein, City of

Worthington v. Ogilby (1982), 8 Ohio App.3d 25, in support of my decision. Closer review 

of the Ogilby decision reveals a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was not raised 

therein. The Ogilby Court summarily denied the speedy trial claim based upon the fact it 

could not be raised for the first time on appeal. It did not suggest a possible further 

mechanism to review the claim.

{¶57} My opinion in Vance was cited and followed by this Court in State v. Turner, 

(2006), 168 Ohio App.3d 176, and more recently in State v. Salser, 5th Dist. Richland Cty. 

App. No. 2019 CA 0087, 2020-Ohio-1000. While recognizing I wrote the Vance opinion 
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00063 15

which was the lead case this District has since followed, upon reconsideration, I think I 

was wrong. 

{¶58} Whether the speedy trial statute has been violated, and more specifically 

whether any days within the time period were properly tolled, can and should be decided 

upon the record as presently submitted to this court. That record cannot be altered or 

supplemented after appeal. Both Appellant and Appellee have had the opportunity to 

argue and establish whether any time was tolled in their respective briefs before this Court 

based upon the docket and record presented to this Court. As such, I respectfully dissent 

from the majority’s decision not to address the merits of Appellant’s third assignment of 

error at this time.