[Cite as State v. Jenkins , 2022

- Ohio

- 979.]

COURT OF APPEALS LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO JUDGES : Hon. W. Scott Gwin , P.J

. Plaintiff

- Appell ee Hon. William B. Hoffman , J. Hon. Patricia A. Delaney , J.

- vs Case No. 2021 CA 00090 THEODORE D. JENKINS

Defendant

- Appell ant O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Licking County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 20

- CR

- 00353

JUDGMENT: Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: March 24, 2022

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff

- Appell ee For Defendant

- Appell ant WILLIAM C. HAYES JEREMY J. MASTERS Licking County Prosecutor Assistant State Public Defender 250 East Broad Street

– Suite #1400 CLIFFORD J. MURPHY Columbus, Ohio 43215 Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 20 South Second Street

– 4 th Floor Newark, Ohio 43055Licking County, Case No. 2021 CA 00090 2

Hoffman , J. {¶1} Defendant

- appellant Theodore D. Jenkins appeals the November 9, 2021 Judgment Entry entered by the Licking County Court of Common Pleas, which approved Twin Valley Behavior Healthcare Center’s application to forcibly administer medication to

him. Plaintiff

- appellee is the state of Ohio.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS {¶2} On July 23, 2020, the Licking County Grand Jury indicted Appellant on on e count of criminal use of a chemical or explosive device, in violation of R.C. 2909.27(A), a felony of the second degree; and one count of inducing panic, in violation of R.C. 2917.31(A)(1), a misdemeanor of the first degree. Appellant appeared for arrai gnment on July 28, 2020, and entered a plea of not guilty to the Indictment. {¶3} On September 8, 2020, Attorney Kort Gatterdam filed a motion requesting an evaluation of Appellant’s competency to stand trial pursuant to R.C. 2945.37. The trial

court ordered N etcare Forensic Psychiatry Center (“Netcare Forensic”) to conduct the evaluation and submit a written report. Sept. 10, 2020 Order for Evaluation to Determine Defendant’s Competency to Stand Trial. Dr. Douglas Pawlarczyk, a psychologist with

Netcare Fore nsic, conducted the evaluation on January 27, 2021. His report to the trial court was dated February 22, 2021. {¶4} Attorney Gatterdam filed a motion to withdraw as counsel, which the trial court granted on December 2, 2020. The trial court appointed Attorney Todd Barstow to represent Appellant. On March 2, 2021, Attorney Barstow filed a motion requesting a second evaluation to determine Appellant’s competency to stand trial. Via Order filed March 15, 2021, the trial court ordered Dr. Daniel L. Davis, a fore nsic psychologist, to conduct the second evaluation. His report to the trial court was dated April 20, 2021,Licking County, Case No. 2021 CA 00090 3

{¶5} The trial court scheduled a hearing on the competency evaluation for July 12, 2021. Appellant appeared for the hearing and requested the trial co urt appoint new counsel. The trial court allowed Attorney Barstow to withdraw. Via Judgment Entry filed July 12, 2021, the trial court appointed Attorney Kirk McVay to represent Appellant. {¶6} The trial court conducted a competency hearing on September 13, 2021. The state presented the testimony and reports of Drs. Pawlarczyk and Davis. Via Judgment Entry filed September 14, 2021, the trial court found Appellant was presently incompetent to stand trial, and a substantial probability existed Appellant coul d be restored to competency within the statutory timeframe if provided with treatment. The trial court ordered Appellant undergo treatment at the Timothy B. Moritz Forensic Unit at Twin Valley Behavioral Healthcare (“TVBH”). In reaching its decision, the trial court found Dr. Pawlarczyk and Dr. Davis both concluded Appellant was incapable of understanding the nature and objectives of the proceedings against him and incapable of assisting

counsel in his own defense. The trial court noted both Dr. Pawlarcz yk and Dr. Davis opined Appellant could be restored to competency within the time frame permitted by law, and agreed the least restrictive setting for placement consistent with Appellant’s needs and the safety of the community was the maximum security inpa tient setting at TVBH. {¶7} Via letter dated October 27, 2021, David Forman, Forensic Services Director at TVBH, notified the trial court Appellant refused to comply with treatment and medications which had been prescribed to aid in his clinical stability. Forman advised the

trail c ourt TVBH would be filing a Motion for Court Approval of Medical Treatment and Administration of Medication pursuant to R.C. 2945.38(B)(1)(c). On the same day, Dr.Licking County, Case No. 2021 CA 00090 4

Andrew Savage, Chief Clinical Officer, and Dr. David Soehner, Treating Psychiatrist, filed an Application to Authorize Involuntary Psychotropic Medication. {¶8} The trial court conducted a hearing on TVBH’s application on November 8, 2021. Dr. Soehner testified his duties and responsibilities include diagnosing and treating patients with mental il lness in order to restore them to competency to stand trial as well as individuals found not guilty by reason of insanity. Dr. Soehner explained Appellant arrived at TVBH for the second time on October 26, 2021, with symptoms consistent with bipolar disor der and manic with psychotic features. Appellant had previously been

admitted to TVBH in 2017. Dr. Soehner noted Appellant was taking some of his medication, but was unwilling to take other medication which was “being offered to further control his symptoms.” Transcript of Nov. 8, 2021 Hearing at 7. Dr. Soehner stated, in his professional opinion , Appellant is unable to give fully informed and knowingly intelligent consent regarding his medications. The doctor found Appellant’s reasons for not wanting to take the prescribed medications to be “irrational.” Id . at 8. Dr. Soehner

described the com mon side effects of the prescribed medications, but opined the benefits of the medications outweigh the side effects. He added there were no alternative treatments available which would help control Appellant’s symptoms. {¶9} On cross

- examination, Dr. Soehner was questioned about a 2017 order issued by Judge Marcelain of the Licking County Court of Common Pleas for the forced administration of medication. Dr. Soehner acknowledged Appellant did ultimately consent to taking the medication, but added Appellant wa s only compliant after the order was issued. The doctor opined there were no non

- medical interventions to resolve Appellant’s manic and psychotic symptoms.Licking County, Case No. 2021 CA 00090 5

{¶10} Via Judgment Entry filed November 9, 2021, the trial court approved TVBH’s application for forced m edication, and ordered TVBH to forcibly administer medication to Appellant in the event he refused to take the prescribed medication. {¶11} It is from this judgment entry Appellant appeals, raising as his sole assignment of error:

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRA NTING THE APPLICATION TO

INVOLUNTARILY ADMINISTER PSYCHOTROPIC MEDICATION TO MR. JENKINS (NOVEMBER 9, 2021 DECISION AND ENTRY).

I.

{¶12} In his sole assignment of error, Appellant contends the trial court erred and abused its discretion in granting TVBH’s appli cation to involuntarily administer psychotropic medications without considering less intrusive means of doing so. Specifically, while Appellant acknowledges Dr. Soehner testified there were no less intrusive forms of treatment, he maintains the trial cour t failed to consider “less intrusive

means of administering that treatment, such as [a] contempt

- backed court order.” Brief of Appellant at 6 (Emphasis in original). {¶13} In Steele v. Hamilton County Community Ment al Health Board (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 176, the Ohio Supreme Court held “a court may issue an order permitting hospital employees to administer antipsychotic drugs against the wishes of an involuntarily committed mentally ill person if it finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) the patient does not have the capacity to give or withhold informed consentLicking County, Case No. 2021 CA 00090 6

regarding his/her treatment, (2) it is in the patient's best interest to take the medication, i.e., the benefits of the medication outweigh the side effects, and (3) no less intrusive

treatme nt will be as effective in treating the mental illness.” Id . at 187

- 188. {¶14} At the hearing on TVBH’s application to authorize involuntary psychotropic medication, the trial court heard testimony from Dr. Soehner, Appellant's treating physician at TVBH. Dr. Soehner opined to a reasonable degree of medical certainty Appellant lacks capacity to make an informed medical treatment decision. Dr. Soehner explained Appellant believes “medications are going to make him so sedated that he’ll become, quote, stupid an d will droop and that he’ll become violent or unable to work with his defense attorney, and he also feels the medications will then interfere with his

readiness for when Jesus returns.” Tr. at 8. Dr. Soehner stated the medications he was recommending wer e necessary to assist Appellant in being restored to competency as well as his general health and well

- being. Dr. Soehner added there were currently no alternative treatments which would help control Appellant’s manic and psychotic symptoms. {¶15} Dr. Soehner’s testimony addresses the three points in Steele , supra. We find the uncontroverted medical evidence provided by the testimony of Dr. Soehner supports the trial court's findings and conclusions Appellant lacked the capacity to make

informed decisions about his treatment and the benefits of the proposed treatment regimen outweigh the potential side effects, and less intrusive treatments are not available. As such, we cannot say the trial court erred in authorizing the involuntary administration of psychotrop ic medication to Appellant.Licking County, Case No. 2021 CA 00090 7

{¶16} In his Brief to this Court, Appellant argues the trial court should have ordered a less intrusive means of administering the treatment. Pursuant to Steele , supra, a trial court is only required to find “no less intrusive treatm ent will be as effective in treating the mental illness.” The trial court herein made such a determination. Accordingly, we find Appellant’s argument in this regard to be unpersuasive. {¶17} Appellant’s sole assignment of error is overruled. {¶18} The judgment of th e Licking County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

By: Hoffman, J. Gwin, P. J. and Delaney, J. concur