[Cite as State v. Powell , 2020-Ohio-4768.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee

v. RYAN A. POWELL Defendant-Appellant : : : : : : : : : : Appellate Case Nos. 28775 28776 28777 28778 28779

Trial Court Case Nos. 2018-CR-2351 2018-CR-3880 2018-CR-3936 2018-CR-4636 2018-CR-4807 (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas Court )

. . . . . . . . . . . O P I N I O N Rendered on the 2nd day of October, 2020.

. . . . . . . . . . . MATHIAS H. HECK, JR. by LISA M. LIGHT, Atty. Reg. No. 0097348, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Montgomery County Prosecutor’s Office, Ap pellate Division, Montgomery County Courts Building, 301 West Third Street, 5th F loor, Dayton, Ohio 45422 ROBERT ALAN BRENNER, Atty. Reg. No. 0067714, P.O. Box 340214, B eavercreek, Ohio 45434 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant

. . . . . . . . . . . . . HALL, J.-2- {¶ 1} Ryan A. Powell appeals from his convictions for drug-possession offenses. Specifically, he challenges the trial court’s denial of his mot ion that he be screened for

mental health court. The trial c ourt did not abuse its discreti on by denying the motion, so

we affirm. I. Factual and Procedural Background {¶ 2} Powell pleaded guilty to five drug-possession charges under R.C

. 2925.11(A): three fifth-degree felony charges of aggravated pos session of drugs, 1 a fifthdegree felony charge of possession of a fentanyl-related compou nd, 2 and a third-degree felony charge of aggravated possession of drugs. 3 {¶ 3} In February 2020, before he was sentenced, Powell filed a motio n in each

case to be screened for mental health court in which he said th at he had a long history of mental illness and “would benefit from being screened for menta l health court so that he is able to finally get the mental health treatment that he so b adly needs.” But the trial court summarily denied Powell’s requests. The court sentenced him to prison: one year for each of the fifth-degree charges and two years for the third-de gree charge, all sentences running concurrently. {¶ 4} Powell appeals. II. Analysis {¶ 5} The sole assignment o f error alleges:

1 Montgomery C.P. Nos. 2018-CR-2351, 2018-CR-3880, and 2018-CR39 36.

2 Montgomery C.P. No. 2018-CR-4636.

3 Montgomery C.P. No. 2018-CR-4807.-3- THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED BY DENYING THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION

FOR SCREENING FOR MENTAL HEALTH COURT. {¶ 6} Loc.R. 3.16 of the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court, Genera l Division (“Mont. Co. C.P.R.”) cr eates a specialized docket prog ram known as the Mental Health Court (“MHC”), the purpose of which is “to offer intensi ve probation and targeted treatment for offenders who have been diagnosed with a serious mental illness, where

such illness contributed to the offender’s involvement in the c riminal justice system.” Mont. Co. C.P.R. 3.16(A). {¶ 7} A defendant enters MHC in one of two ways: the defendant is ord ered to MHC by the trial judge, Mont. Co. C.P.R. 3.16(C)(1), or the def endant is referred to MHC by a judge, attorney, or others, Mont. Co. C.P.R. 3.16(D)(1). T o be eligible for admission, a defendant must meet certain legal and clinical requirements. Mont. Co. C.P.R. 3.16(C)(2). But ultimately, even if the requirements are met, i t is the MHC Judge 4 who has the “final discretion” as to whether a defendant is eligibl e, Mont. Co. C.P.R. 3.16(D)(2), and “sole discretion” as to whether a defendant is admitted, Mont. Co. C.P.R. 3.16(C). Once a defendant is admitted, the MHC Judge has “autho rity over any and all further court proceedings.” Mont. Co. C.P.R. 3.16(E). {¶ 8} Here, Powell filed a motion requesting “that he be screened for mental health court.” As an initial matter, it is somewhat unclear what Powel l was asking the trial court to do, exactly. Was he asking the court to determine whether he was eligible for MHC, that is, whether he satisfied the legal and the clinical requir ements? Or was Powell asking the court simply to order a mental-health assessment? The trial court understood him to

4 The “MHC Judge” is “the Judge assigned to MCH.” Mont. Co. C.P. R. 3.16(B).-4- be asking for the latter, “a mental health assessment for purpo ses of potential admission to mental health court.” Order and Entry Denying Defendant’s Mo tion for Screening for Mental Health Court, p. 1. {¶ 9} Under Rule 3.16, this assessment would be relevant only to the clinical requirements and would not alone determine Powell’s eligibility for MHC. Moreover, the rule does not say anything about the trial court ordering a men tal-health assessment, screening a defendant for MHC, or determining whether a defenda nt is eligible for MHC. All the rule says about the trial court’s role is that “[t]he a ssigned Judge 5 may order a defendant to MHC.” Mont. Co. C.P.R. 3.16(C)(1). The trial court perhaps, in its inherent discretion, could have ordered a mental-health assessment or gi ven an opinion as to whether it thought Powell satisfied the legal or clinical eligi bility requirements (or both) for MHC. But the rule does not require or grant discretion to the c ourt to do either. At any rate, we find the trial court’s decision to be reasonable. The presentence investigation report (PSI) shows many unsuccessful attempts at treatment. Lik ely, after reviewing the PSI, which the court said it considered, the trial court conclu ded that further treatment would not help Powell. {¶ 10} Powell argues that the procedure in Mont. Co. C.P.R. 3.16(D) fo r referrals to MHC was not followed in his cases, saying that the MHC Judge , not the trial judge, had final discretion to decide eligibility. And Powell argues that the trial court should have explained its rationale for denying his request by reviewing th e rule’s MHC eligibility requirements. But the trial court did not determine whether Pow ell was eligible for MHC.

5 The “assigned Judge” is the judge to whom the criminal case wa s originally assigned. See Mont. Co. C.P.R. 1.19.-5- It simply denied his request for a mental-health assessment. Ev en if the trial court had granted Powell’s request, the MHC Judge still would have had to decide whether he was eligible and whether to admit him.

III. Conclusion {¶ 11} The trial court did not abuse its discretion by overruling Powe ll’s motion to be screened for mental health court. The sole assignment of err or is overruled. {¶ 12} The trial court’s judgments are affirmed.

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

TUCKER, P.J. and WELBAUM, J., concur.

Copies sent to: Mathias H. Heck, Jr. Lisa M. Light Robert Alan Brenner Hon. Mary L. Wiseman