[Cite as State v. Farris, 2020-Ohio-134.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

 ERIE COUNTY 

State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. E-18-047 

 

 Appellee Trial Court No. 2017CR414 

v. 

Bret Farris DECISION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant Decided: January 17, 2020 

* * * * * 

 Kevin J. Baxter, Erie County Prosecuting Attorney, and Anthony A. 

 Battista III, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 

 Emil G. Gravelle III, for appellant. 

* * * * * 

OSOWIK, J. 

{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a June 14, 2018 judgment of the Erie County Court of 

Common Pleas, finding appellant guilty pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement of three 

counts of telecommunications harassment, in violation of R.C. 2917.21, felonies of the 

fifth degree, and one count of violation of a protection order, in violation of R.C. 2919.27, 
2.

a misdemeanor of the first degree. In exchange, four additional telecommunications 

harassment counts, five additional protection order violation counts, and a misdemeanor 

menacing charge were dismissed. 

{¶ 2} Appellant was sentenced to a suspended three-year term of incarceration, in 

addition to a five-year period of community control. For the reasons set forth below, this 

court reverses the judgment of the trial court and remands this case to the trial court for 

purposes of conducting a compulsory R.C. 2945.37(B) competency hearing regarding 

appellant’s mental fitness to stand trial. 

{¶ 3} The record reflects that appellant requested a competency evaluation, the 

trial court granted the request, appellant was evaluated by the Court Diagnostic & 

Treatment Center for both competency to stand trial and not guilty by reason of insanity 

assessment purposes, written reports reaching independent medical opinions adverse to 

appellant were forwarded to the trial court and reviewed by it, but the trial court erred in 

failing to subsequently conduct a compulsory R.C. 2945.37 competency hearing 

regarding appellant prior to case disposition. 

{¶ 4} Thus, although the record reflects that counsel for appellant secured a 

favorable outcome for appellant in the underlying plea agreement, appellant is entitled to 

have the matter reversed and remanded to the trial court on the above-described 

procedural basis. 

 
3.

Appellant, Bret Farris, sets forth the following two assignments of error: 

 I. The trial court erred when it failed to conduct a competency 

hearing before accepting [appellant’s] plea in violation of [due process 

constitutional and statutory requirements]. 

 II. The trial court erred [in ordering] a sentence that was contrary to 

law [by imposing community control outside appellant’s presence]. 

{¶ 5} The following undisputed facts are relevant to this appeal. On November 8, 

2017, appellant was indicted on 14 counts; seven counts of telecommunications 

harassment, six counts of protection order violations, and one misdemeanor menacing 

offense. 

{¶ 6} On March 26, 2018, a pretrial conference was held. On April 3, 2018, at 

appellant’s request, the trial court ordered an R.C. 2945.37(B) competency evaluation to 

be performed for purposes of determining appellant’s legal competency to stand trial and 

to determine whether the defense of not guilty by reason of insanity may apply to 

appellant. 

{¶ 7} The competency evaluation order was necessitated as the trial court was 

advised that at the time of appellant’s indictment on the instant cases, appellant was a 

patient at an out-of-state mental health treatment facility in response to possible suicidal 

ideations. Accordingly, the trial court determined that it should not proceed further until 

appellant’s legal competency to stand trial was ascertained. The evaluations of appellant 
4.

were completed and submitted to the trial court. They reflected appellant to be legally 

competent to stand trial. 

{¶ 8} However, on June 14, 2018, without first conducting the R.C. 2945.37(B) 

compulsory competency hearing to place the findings pertaining to appellant’s 

competency on the record and make a formal competency determination, the trial court 

accepted a negotiated plea agreement and disposed of appellant’s cases. 

{¶ 9} On June 14, 2018, appellant entered a plea of guilty to three of the 

telecommunications harassment counts and one of the violation of a protection order 

counts. In exchange, the remaining ten offenses pending against appellant were 

dismissed. Appellant was sentenced to a five-year term of community control and a 

suspended three-year term of incarceration. This appeal ensued. 

{¶ 10} In the first assignment of error, appellant asserts that the trial court 

committed reversible error when it accepted appellant’s negotiated pleas and sentenced 

appellant without having first conducted an R.C. 2945.37(B) competency hearing. We 

concur. 

{¶ 11} R.C. 2945.37(B) establishes in pertinent part, “In a criminal action in a 

common pleas court * * * [I]f the issue of [defendant’s competency to stand trial] is 

raised before the trial has commenced, the court shall hold a hearing on the issue as 

provided in this section.” (Emphasis added). 
5.

{¶ 12} Our review of this matter is guided by State v. Miller, 2017-Ohio-7091, 95 

N.E.3d 832 (8th Dist.), which is illustrative on the proper handling of scenarios such as 

the one present in the instant case. 

{¶ 13} In Miller, as analogous to the present case, the trial court had ordered that 

the defendant receive a competency evaluation prior to proceeding to trial, the 

competency evaluation was completed, the written report was forwarded to the trial court 

for review, but then the trial court subsequently accepted a negotiated plea agreement 

without first conducting the requisite R.C. 2945.37(B) competency hearing. 

{¶ 14} Given these circumstances, the Miller court held in relevant part, “An 

evidentiary hearing is both statutorily and constitutionally required when the issue of 

competency is raised before trial and there are sufficient indicia of incompetency to call 

into doubt the competency to stand trial * * * Therefore, the trial court erred in failing to 

hold a competency hearing as mandated by R.C. 2945.37(B) before accepting Miller’s 

guilty pleas.” Miller, ¶ 13-14. Accordingly, the judgment was reversed and the case was 

remanded to the trial court for purposes of conducting the competency hearing prior to 

case resolution. 

{¶ 15} Likewise, we find that the trial court erred in this case in failing to hold the 

mandatory statutory competency hearing prior to accepting the plea agreement. 

Accordingly, we find appellant’s first assignment of error well-taken. 
6.

{¶ 16} Having determined that the trial court erred in failing to hold the statutorily 

mandated competency hearing before accepting appellant’s guilty pleas, we find that the 

remaining assignment of error is rendered moot as a matter of law. 

{¶ 17} An R.C. 2945.37 competency hearing must be conducted prior to the trial 

court’s acceptance of a new proposed plea agreement or prior to proceeding to trial on the 

14 originally charged offenses. 

{¶ 18} On consideration whereof, the judgment of the Erie County Court of 

Common Pleas is hereby reversed. The case is remanded to the trial court for further 

proceedings consistent with this decision. Appellee is ordered to pay the costs of this 

appeal pursuant to App.R. 24. 

Judgment reversed 

and remanded. 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. 

See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4. 

Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. _______________________________ 

JUDGE 

Thomas J. Osowik, J. 

_______________________________ 

Christine E. Mayle, J. JUDGE 

CONCUR. 

_______________________________ 

JUDGE 

This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of 

Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported 

version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: 

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.