[Cite as State v. Peters, 2016-Ohio-7773.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES: 

 : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. 

 Plaintiff - Appellee : Hon. John W. Wise, J. 

 : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. 

-vs- : 

 : 

RONALD PETERS : Case No. CT2015-0064 

 : 

 Defendant - Appellant : O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Muskingum County 

Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 

CR2015-1057 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT: November 16, 2016 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant 

D. MICHAEL HADDOX ERIC J. ALLEN 

Prosecuting Attorney 4605 Morse Rd. Suite 201 

 Gahanna, Ohio 43230 

By: GERALD V. ANDERSON II 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 

27 North Fifth Street, P.O. Box 189 

Zanesville, Ohio 43702 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2015-0064 2 

Baldwin, J.

{¶1} Appellant Ronald Peters appeals a judgment of the Muskingum County 

Common Pleas Court convicting him of failure to comply with the order or signal of a 

police officer as a third degree felony (R.C. 2921.331(B), (C)(5)), and tampering with 

evidence (R.C. 2921.12(A)(1)). Appellee is the State of Ohio. 

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE 

{¶2} On April 19, 2015, Trooper Kenneth Schrig of the Ohio State Highway Patrol 

was conducting airspeed enforcement on Interstate 70 when he clocked a vehicle driven 

by appellant traveling 95 miles per hour. He radioed to Trooper Corey Campbell to stop 

appellant. When Tpr. Campbell activated his lights to stop appellant’s vehicle, appellant 

increased his speed and began weaving in and out of traffic, driving on the berm, and 

splitting cars at speeds between 90 mph and 115 mph. During the chase, a bag was 

tossed from the vehicle. 

{¶3} The chase continued until appellant exited the interstate and drove across 

the airfield of the Zanesville Airport. He got out of the car and tossed his car keys in a 

trash can. He entered the airport and asked an employee to charter a flight for him. When 

he was informed that the airport could not do that for him, he walked outside and appeared 

surprised to find police officers waiting for him. Appellant and the passenger in his car, 

Chelsea Parker, were arrested. Both claimed that they were unaware the officers were 

pursuing them. 

{¶4} Appellant was indicted with failure to comply with the order or signal of a 

police officer as a third degree felony because his conduct created a substantial risk of 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2015-0064 3 

harm to persons or property, and tampering with evidence. Appellant entered a plea of 

not guilty and the case was set for jury trial on August 27, 2015. 

{¶5} On August 26, 2015, appellant filed an application for the appointment of a 

psychiatrist to examine him at state expense pursuant to R.C. 2945.37. The next morning 

just before the start of his trial, appellant made an oral request for a competency 

evaluation. Counsel indicated to the court that appellant’s behavior had become erratic, 

that appellant told counsel he suffers from schizophrenia as well as depression, and that 

appellant felt he was incompetent to move forward and assist counsel in his defense. 

Counsel indicated that the information appellant provided for his defense had proven to 

be false. 

{¶6} The court inquired as to the sudden emergence of the competency issue, 

as appellant had been represented by counsel for more than four months. Counsel 

indicated that there was a moment when it became clear to him that appellant had multiple 

personalities, appearing to be Keyser Soze. Further, appellant had another attorney see 

him at the jail to patent his record label and clothing line. 

{¶7} The court then questioned appellant concerning his knowledge of the court 

system. Appellant indicated to the court that his attorney represents him, the prosecutor 

would prosecute him, and he was in court “allegedly” for an F-3. He indicated to the court 

that he knew what he was charged with and knew who the judge was. Appellant spoke 

with the judge concerning his diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia and his need for 

medication. The court explained to appellant that mental health and competency were 

separate issues. The prosecutor represented that appellant had made specific requests 

as to what he wanted to see happen in the case, demonstrating a sophisticated 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2015-0064 4 

understanding the nature of the charges. Based on the fact that appellant had a basic 

understanding of the system and had only raised his mental health issues to counsel as 

they neared the trial date, the court overruled the motion. 

{¶8} Following trial, appellant was convicted as charged. Between trial and 

sentencing, the trial court ordered a competency evaluation of appellant. The report of 

the psychiatrist indicated that appellant was malingering, or exaggerating/feigning his 

symptoms to avoid dealing with his legal issues. The psychiatrist opined to a reasonable 

degree of psychological certainty that appellant was capable of understanding the nature 

and objective of the proceedings against him, and to assist in his defense. The trial court 

sentenced appellant to thirty-six months incarceration on each count, to be served 

consecutively. 

{¶9} Appellant assigns a single error on appeal: 

{¶10} “THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING APPELLANT’S REQUEST 

FOR A COMPETENCY EVALUATION.” 

{¶11} R.C. 2945.37 provides in pertinent part: 

(B) In a criminal action in a court of common pleas, a county court, 

or a municipal court, the court, prosecutor, or defense may raise the issue 

of the defendant's competence to stand trial. If the issue is raised before the 

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

in this section. If the issue is raised after the trial has commenced, the court 

shall hold a hearing on the issue only for good cause shown or on the court's 

own motion. 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2015-0064 5 

(C) The court shall conduct the hearing required or authorized under 

division (B) of this section within thirty days after the issue is raised, unless 

the defendant has been referred for evaluation in which case the court shall 

conduct the hearing within ten days after the filing of the report of the 

evaluation or, in the case of a defendant who is ordered by the court 

pursuant to division (H) of section 2945.371 of the Revised Code to undergo 

a separate intellectual disability evaluation conducted by a psychologist 

designated by the director of developmental disabilities, within ten days 

after the filing of the report of the separate intellectual disability evaluation 

under that division. A hearing may be continued for good cause. 

(F) The court shall not find a defendant incompetent to stand trial 

solely because the defendant is receiving or has received treatment as a 

voluntary or involuntary mentally ill patient under Chapter 5122. or a 

voluntary or involuntary resident with an intellectual disability under Chapter 

5123. of the Revised Code or because the defendant is receiving or has 

received psychotropic drugs or other medication, even if the defendant 

might become incompetent to stand trial without the drugs or medication. 

{¶12} Appellant argues that the court erred in failing to order a psychiatric 

evaluation of his competence, and by failing to hold a hearing concerning competency. 

{¶13} Where the issue of the defendant's competency to stand trial is raised prior 

to the trial, a competency hearing is mandatory. State v. Bock, 28 Ohio St.3d 108, 109, 

502 N.E.2d 1016 (1986). However, the failure to hold a competency hearing is harmless 

error where the record fails to reveal sufficient indicia of incompetency. Id. at 110. 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2015-0064 6 

{¶14} Although the trial court in the instant case did not hold a separate 

evidentiary hearing on the issue of competency, the trial court did inquire of both appellant 

and his counsel concerning appellant’s competency before trial began. Appellant 

indicated to the court that his attorney represents him, the prosecutor would prosecute 

him, and he was in court “allegedly” for an F-3. He indicated to the court that he knew 

what he was charged with and knew who the judge was. Appellant spoke to the judge 

concerning his diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia and his need for medication. The 

court explained to appellant that mental health and competency were separate issues. 

The prosecutor represented that appellant had made specific requests as to what 

happened in the case, demonstrating sophistication in understanding the nature of the 

charges. The colloquy between appellant and the court did not reveal indicia of 

incompetency. 

{¶15} Further, while counsel represented to the court that appellant had exhibited 

signs of multiple personalities and appellant told the court he was diagnosed with 

paranoid schizophrenia and depression, R.C. 2945.37(F) specifically provides that a 

defendant is not incompetent solely on the basis of mental illness. Therefore, mental 

illness in and of itself does not render appellant incompetent to stand trial. The record 

demonstrates that up until shortly before trial, appellant was able to work with counsel, 

providing him with information to assist in his defense. The representations of counsel to 

the court reflected that appellant’s behavior had only recently become erratic, and his 

description of appellant’s behavior reflected indicia of mental illness rather than of 

incompetency to stand trial. 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2015-0064 7 

{¶16} Finally, the trial court did order a psychiatric evaluation prior to sentencing 

at which competency was addressed. The opinion of the psychiatrist was that appellant 

was malingering, or exaggerating/feigning his symptoms to avoid dealing with his legal 

issues. The psychiatrist opined to a reasonable degree of psychological certainty that 

appellant was capable of understanding the nature and objective of the proceedings 

against him, and to assist in his defense. Therefore, any error in failing to order an 

evaluation of appellant prior to trial was rendered harmless by the evaluation conducted 

shortly after trial and the finding that appellant was competent to stand trial. 

{¶17} The assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Muskingum 

County Common Pleas Court is affirmed. Costs are assessed to appellant. 

By: Baldwin, J. 

Gwin, J. and 

Wise, J. concur.