[Cite as State v. Dowdy, 2012-Ohio-2382.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 96642 

STATE OF OHIO

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

vs. 

SHAUN DOWDY

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

JUDGMENT: 

REVERSED AND REMANDED 

Criminal Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case No. CR-520345 

BEFORE: E. Gallagher, J., Boyle, P.J., and Kilbane, J. 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: May 31, 2012 

 
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

Robert L. Tobik 

Cuyahoga County Public Defender 

By: Cullen Sweeney 

Assistant Public Defender 

310 Lakeside Avenue 

Suite 200 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 

Shaun Dowdy 

Inmate No. 581-923 

Lorain Correctional Institution 

2075 S. Avon-Belden Rd. 

Grafton, Ohio 44044 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

William D. Mason 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

BY: Brian M. McDonough 

Assistant County Prosecutor 

The Justice Center, 9th Floor 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J.: 

{¶1} Appellant Shaun Dowdy appeals his convictions for aggravated murder and 

kidnapping in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. For the following reasons, 

we reverse and remand. 

{¶2} Appellant was indicted on January 30, 2009 for three counts of kidnapping, 

five counts of felonious assault and two counts of aggravated murder with felony murder 

specifications. All counts contained one- and three-year firearm specifications, a notice 

of a prior conviction and a repeat violent offender specification. 

{¶3} Appellant pled not guilty to the indictment and the record reflects that on 

September 4, 2009, appellant’s trial counsel raised the issue of appellant’s mental health 

and competence to stand trial. The trial court granted appellant’s request to conduct an 

independent, confidential assessment of appellant’s competency. Thereafter, appellant 

was referred to the court psychiatric clinic for examination. The clinic’s doctor reported 

that she was unable to render an opinion as to appellant’s competency to stand trial and 

the trial court then ordered appellant to Northcoast Behavioral Healthcare (Northcoast) 

for an inpatient competency evaluation. The trial court’s October 26, 2009 journal entry 

stated: 

Upon completion of the evaluation, [Northcoast] is to provide a report to 

the court opining either (1) that the defendant is incompetent to stand trial 

and is therefore requesting that the defendant’s legal status be updated to 

incompetent to stand trial or (2) that the defendant is competent to stand 
trial and can be transported back to Cuyahoga County Jail to await trial. 

{¶4} The record is devoid of the results of appellant’s evaluation by Northcoast. 

On February 2, 2010, a scheduled hearing was called on appellant’s pro se motion to 

disqualify counsel. At that time appellant’s counsel represented to the trial court that 

appellant had been found to be competent. Appellant’s counsel reiterated the same on 

February 17, 2010, at the time that appellant entered into a plea agreement. 

{¶5} Although we recognize and respect trial counsel’s legal acumen and his 

skill as an advocate for his clients, he has no demonstrable expertise in the 

pychiatric/psychological assessment arena. 

{¶6} Appellant pled guilty to one count of kidnapping and one count of 

aggravated murder with a firearm specification. All remaining specifications were 

deleted and the remaining counts were nolled. Appellant was sentenced to consecutive 

prison terms of ten years for kidnapping, life with the possibility of parole after 20 years 

for aggravated murder and three years for the three-year firearm specification for a 

cumulative sentence of 33 years to life. 

{¶7} On December 27, 2010, appellant filed a motion for resentencing, arguing 

that the trial court was required to resentence him to remedy the fact that he was not 

advised of his appeal rights. On March 17, 2011, the trial court denied the motion for 

resentencing, but did “reenter” the journal entry of conviction with notice of appellant’s 

appeal rights “in order to provide [appellant] the ability to timely appeal his conviction.” 

Accordingly, appellant brought the present appeal raising the four assignments of error 

contained in the appendix to this opinion. 
{¶8} As a general matter, a trial court does not have the power to reenter a 

judgment in order to circumvent the App.R. 4(A) limitation period for the filing of an 

appeal. See State v. Barr, 8th Dist. No. 96907, 2011-Ohio-6651; State v. Myers, 8th 

Dist. No. 65309, 1993 WL 483554 (Nov. 18, 1993). Moreover, in the case sub judice, 

the trial court does not have the power to reenter the sentence only to restart the 

appellant’s time for appeal, and therefore, this appeal is untimely. However, in the 

interest of justice, this Court, sua sponte, granted leave for a delayed appeal in order to 

address appellant’s arguments regarding his conviction. 

{¶9} We first consider appellant’s second assignment of error as it is dispositive 

of the appeal. 

{¶10} Appellant’s second assignment of error states: 

The trial court erred and rendered the appellant’s plea void when it 

proceeded to disposition without holding a hearing on the issue of 

defendant’s competency as was required by statute and the state and federal 

constitutions. 

{¶11} Under Ohio law, 

a person whose mental condition is such that he lacks the capacity to 

understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him, to consult 

with counsel, and to assist in preparing his defense may not be subjected to 

a trial. The conviction of an accused while he is not legally competent to 

stand trial violates due process of law. State v. Rubenstein, 40 Ohio 

App.3d 57, 60, 531 N.E.2d 732 (8th Dist. 1987). 

{¶12} Moreover, under R.C. 2945.37, the Ohio legislature has determined that: 

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

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. 
* * * 

(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 * * *. 

* * * 

(E) The prosecutor and defense counsel may submit evidence of the issue of 

the defendant’s competence to stand trial. A written report of the 

evaluation of the defendant may be admitted into evidence at the hearing by 

stipulation * * *. R.C. 2945.37(B)-(E). 

{¶13} This court has held that, “[t]he competency issue is one that can be waived 

by the parties. A hearing is not required in all situations, only those where the 

competency issue is raised and maintained.” State v. Smith, 8th Dist. No. 95505, 

2011-Ohio-2400, at ¶ 5. In Smith, we held that where a defendant stipulates to 

competency, a trial court need not hold a hearing pursuant to R.C. 2945.37(B) because a 

hearing is only needed to introduce evidence rebutting the presumption of competency 

established in R.C. 2945.37(G). Id. at ¶ 6. 

{¶14} In State v. Asadi-Ousley, 8th Dist. No. 96668, 2012-Ohio-106, we held 

that a competency hearing is not necessary when “[t]he record reflects that * * * both the 

defense counsel and the state stipulate[ ] to * * * psychiatric reports that appellant was 

competent to stand trial.” (Emphasis added.) Id. at ¶ 4. See also State v. O'Neill, 7th 

Dist. No. 03 MA 188, 2004-Ohio-6805, ¶ 21 (“where the parties stipulate to the contents 

of the competency reports which opine that the defendant is competent, the parties 

stipulate to competency and waive the competency hearing.”) 
{¶15} In the case sub judice, no competency hearing was held, the record does 

not reflect any formal finding or adoption of competency, no psychiatric report exists in 

the record despite the trial court’s explicit order that the report be provided by Northcoast 

and the state did not stipulate to appellant’s competency or the results of appellant’s 

psychiatric evaluation. 

{¶16} Furthermore, we cannot conclude that the trial court’s failure to conduct 

the statutorily required hearing was harmless error. See, e.g., State v. Bock, 28 Ohio 

St.3d 108, 502 N.E.2d 1016 (1986), (court’s failure to conduct competency hearing was 

harmless error where defendant participated in trial, offered his own testimony, and the 

record failed to reveal sufficient indicia of incompetency). The issue of appellant’s 

competency was raised, the court psychiatric clinic’s doctor was unable to render an 

opinion as to appellant’s competency and the results of appellant’s subsequent evaluation 

by Northcoast Behavioral Healthcare were not made part of the record or jointly 

stipulated to by the parties. Unlike Bock, we cannot glean sufficient information from 

this record to determine whether the court’s failure to conduct the hearing was harmless. 

State v. Cruz, 8th Dist. No. 93403, 2010-Ohio-3717. 

{¶17} Appellant’s second assignment of error is sustained. 

{¶18} In light of the foregoing, we reverse appellant’s convictions and remand 

this case to the trial court to vacate the plea and conduct a hearing on appellant’s 

competency pursuant to R.C. 2945.37. Appellant’s remaining assignments of error are 

moot. 

It is ordered that appellant recover of said appellee costs herein taxed. 
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the 

lower court to carry this judgment into execution. 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to 

Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

 

 

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, JUDGE 

MARY J. BOYLE, P.J., and 

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., CONCUR 

Appendix 

Assignment of Error No. 1: 

“The trial court erred by consecutively sentencing the appellant for the crimes of 

kidnapping and aggravated murder, as they were allied offenses of similar import 

rendering the appellant’s plea a violation of his due process rights.” 

Assignment of Error No. 2: 

“The trial court erred and rendered the appellant’s plea void when it proceeded to 

disposition without holding a hearing on the issue of defendant’s competency as 

was required by statute and the state and federal constitutions.” 

Assignment of Error No. 3: 

“The trial court made a [sic] error when accepting the appellant’s guilty plea 

without making sure that the appellant understood the nature of the charges, in 
violiotion [sic] of the appellant’s rights to due process of law under the 6th

amendment to the United States constitution and Article I, Section 10, of the Ohio 

constitution, and failed to comply with Crim.R. 11((C)(2)(a)). [sic] The plea was 

less then [sic] knowingly, intelligently made.” 

Assignment of Error No. 4: 

“The plea must be vacated because the trial court made a [sic] error when it did not 

advise the appellant of his maximum penalty that would be imposed on the 

‘firearm sepecification’ [sic] on count 9, and failed to comply with Crim.R. 

11((C)(2)(a)). [sic] The plea was less then [sic] knowingly, intelligently made.”