Court Opinion

ID: 9403286
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-20 19:09:34.929372+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:05.972685
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Peters, 2023-Ohio-2028.]

                  IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                            ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                 TRUMBULL COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,                                      CASE NO. 2022-T-0106

                  Plaintiff-Appellee,
                                                    Criminal Appeal from the
         - vs -                                     Court of Common Pleas

ELIJAH D. PETERS,
                                                    Trial Court No. 2021 CR 00394
                  Defendant-Appellant.

                                             OPINION

                                         Decided: June 20, 2023
                                          Judgment: Affirmed

Dennis Watkins, Trumbull County Prosecutor, and Ryan J. Sanders, Assistant
Prosecutor, Administration Building, Fourth Floor, 160 High Street, N.W., Warren, OH
44481 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

Michael A. Partlow, P.O. Box 1562, Stow, OH 44224 (For Defendant-Appellant).

MATT LYNCH, J.

        {¶1}      Defendant-appellant, Elijah D. Peters, appeals from the judgment of the

Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, finding him competent to stand trial. For the

following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the lower court.

        {¶2}      On June 3, 2021, Peters was indicted by the Trumbull County Grand Jury

for Unlawful Sexual Conduct with a Minor (Count One), a felony of the fourth degree, in

violation of R.C. 2907.04(A); two counts of Gross Sexual Imposition (Counts Two and

Three), felonies of the third degree, in violation of R.C. 2907.05(A)(4); three counts of

Rape (Counts Four through Six), felonies of the first degree, in violation of R.C.
2907.02(A)(1)(b); and Disseminating Matter Harmful to Juveniles (Count Seven), a felony

of the fifth degree, in violation of R.C. 2907.31(A)(1).

       {¶3}   Peters moved for a determination of competency to stand trial and the court

issued a July 23, 2021 entry ordering a competency examination by the Forensic

Psychiatric Center. The court issued an entry on September 16, 2021, stating that the

matter had come before the court for a hearing on that date (a transcript of which is not

present in the record). The court found that Peters had been examined by Dr. Hart of the

Forensic Psychiatric Center and ordered that a second examination be completed by the

office of Dr. Noffsinger at the UH Cleveland Medical Center.

       {¶4}   A competency hearing was held on November 4, 2021. The prosecutor

summarized that the initial report from the Forensic Psychiatric Center found that Peters

“was incompetent, but likely restorable.” The State had asked for a second evaluation, in

which the psychiatrist found Peters incompetent and was unsure whether he could be

rehabilitated. The court issued a Judgment Entry finding that, “because of defendant’s

present mental condition, the defendant is incapable of understanding the nature and

objective of the proceedings against him or assisting in his own defense.” It ordered that

he undergo treatment at a mental health facility.

       {¶5}   On June 1, 2022, a hearing was conducted on Peters’ restoration to

competence. The following testimony was presented at the hearing:

       {¶6}   Dr. Przemyslaw Kapalczynski, a staff psychiatrist at Heartland Behavioral

Healthcare, treated Peters since his admission on December 9, 2021, and worked with

him for over four months. In the course of treating him to restore competency, he

interacted with Peters once to twice a week.

                                              2

Case No. 2022-T-0106
       {¶7}   Dr. Kapalczynski observed that Peters is “not 100 percent concrete in his

thinking” which impacts his abstract thinking and can be “suggestible,” but he did not

believe this impacted Peters’ competency.            Peters’ IQ was borderline between

“intellectual disability and * * * below average intelligence,” although his scores relating to

cognitive impairment were within the normal range. Dr. Kapalczynski agreed with the

findings in the prior competency evaluations that Peters had borderline intellectual

function but he disagreed with the medical diagnosis by Dr. Hart of depressive and anxiety

disorders.

       {¶8}   During his treatment, Peters received medications for mood stabilization

and to help with sleep. Dr. Kapalczynski testified that these medications helped with

sleep, impulsivity, and mood fluctuations but he did not believe the medication impacted

Peters’ competence to stand trial. Peters’ treatment also included participation in a

“restoration to competency” program, where he learned about the legal system and how

courts function.

       {¶9}   On April 14, 2022, Dr. Kapalczynski performed a competency assessment

and mental status exam, which included questions about court procedure and criminal

charges, during which Peters was generally able to give correct information about these

matters. Peters improved his score on a test about court procedures from a 70 to an 80

following treatment. Dr. Kapalczynski attributed this to Peters’ increased knowledge

about legal concepts.

       {¶10} Dr. Kapalczynski determined “with reasonable medical certainty, * * * that

[Peters] was competent to stand trial.” He testified that Peters’ ability to assist in his legal

proceedings and his knowledge of such proceedings “improved significantly.” He testified

                                               3

Case No. 2022-T-0106
that after a “period of education and restoration,” Peters knows the different types of

pleas, understands the charges and their seriousness, did not have unrealistic

expectations regarding the outcome and demonstrated he wants the best possible

outcome, and is able to understand the nature and objectives of the proceedings. He

cited as evidence that Peters is able to assist in his defense the following: he was not

cognitively impaired, he is “fully oriented to time and place,” he can recount the events

leading to his arrest “in a way that would be helpful to his counsel,” and does not have

psychosis or delusions which would preclude him from interacting with his attorney and

the court in a “productive” manner.

      {¶11} On June 6, 2022, the court, “[b]ased on the competency report and

testimony heard” found, “by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Defendant is

capable of understanding the nature and objectives of the proceedings against him and

of assisting in his own defense” and was competent to stand trial.

      {¶12} A change of plea hearing was held on July 21, 2022, at which Peters

entered a guilty plea to all charges in the indictment with the exception of Count Six

(Rape), which was dismissed. The court reviewed the rights waived by Peters. The court

inquired whether Peters had any mental health conditions which “would prevent [him]

from understanding what’s going on here today,” to which he responded in the negative.

The State indicated that it would have proven that Peters engaged in sexual conduct with

two minor victims and sent nude pictures of himself to a third minor. The parties jointly

recommended an indefinite prison sentence of 10 to 15 years. Peters’ pleas were

accepted by the court after the court found that the pleas were knowingly, intelligently,

and voluntarily made.

                                            4

Case No. 2022-T-0106
       {¶13} A sentencing hearing was held on September 22, 2022. The prosecutor

requested that the agreed sentence be imposed. The court imposed a sentence of 18

months on Count One, 36 months on Counts Two and Three, 10 to 15 years on Count

Four, and 10 years on Count Five and one year on Count Seven, all running concurrently

for a total indefinite term of 10 to 15 years. This sentence was memorialized in an October

5, 2022 Judgment Entry.

       {¶14} Peters timely appeals and raises the following assignment of error:

       {¶15} “The trial court erred in finding that appellant was competent to stand trial

and such finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence.”

       {¶16} Peters argues that a manifest weight standard of review should be applied

and, under such a standard, the evidence did not support a conclusion that he was

competent to stand trial.

       {¶17} “In a criminal action in a court of common pleas, * * * 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.” R.C. 2945.37(B). “If, after a hearing, the court finds by a

preponderance of the evidence that, because of the defendant’s present mental condition,

the defendant is incapable of understanding the nature and objective of the proceedings

against the defendant or of assisting in the defendant’s defense, the court shall find the

defendant incompetent to stand trial and shall enter an order authorized by section

2945.38 of the Revised Code [setting forth procedures for treatment and continuing

evaluation of those found incompetent to stand trial].” R.C. 2945.37(G).

       {¶18} A defendant is competent to stand trial, as well as to enter a guilty plea,

                                            5

Case No. 2022-T-0106
when he has “‘sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree

of rational understanding’” and “‘a rational as well as factual understanding of the

proceedings against him.’” Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 396, 113 S.Ct. 2680, 125

L.Ed.2d 321 (1993), quoting Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 80 S.Ct. 788, 4

L.Ed.2d 824 (1960). “[A] defendant is presumed to be competent to stand trial, and the

burden is on the defendant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is not

competent.” State v. Neyland, 139 Ohio St.3d 353, 2014-Ohio-1914, 12 N.E.3d 1112, ¶

32; State v. Lawson, 165 Ohio St.3d 445, 2021-Ohio-3566, 179 N.E.3d 1216, ¶ 48 (“[a]

defendant is rebuttably presumed to be competent to stand trial”).

       {¶19} We will first address Peters’ argument regarding the applicable standard in

competency cases. Peters contends that the proper standard of review should be “more

akin to a ‘manifest weight’ standard of review.” He contends that the decision should not

be left to the discretion of the court and the “‘some competent, credible evidence’ test

appears to be overly deferential considering the rather lofty constitutional concerns called

into question.”

       {¶20} As has been recognized by this court, “[t]he Supreme Court of Ohio has

long held that a trial court does not abuse its discretion in finding a defendant competent

where its findings of competency are supported by some reliable, credible evidence.”

State v. Spurrier, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2020-L-069, 2021-Ohio-1061, ¶ 42, citing State v.

Vrabel, 99 Ohio St.3d 184, 2003-Ohio-3193, 790 N.E.2d 303, ¶ 33 (“We find that the trial

court did not abuse its discretion in finding appellant competent.             Under these

circumstances, we will not disturb the trial court’s findings, since there was some reliable,

credible evidence supporting them.”); State v. Spencer, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2017-T-

                                             6

Case No. 2022-T-0106
0117, 2018-Ohio-4276, ¶ 35 (“[a]n appellate court will affirm a trial court’s finding of

competency when the record contains some competent, credible evidence supporting

such a finding”) (citation omitted). An abuse of discretion is the trial court’s “‘failure to

exercise sound, reasonable, and legal decision-making.’” State v. Beechler, 2d Dist.

Clark No. 09-CA-54, 2010-Ohio-1900, ¶ 62, quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 11 (8th

Ed.2004). This court has also noted that, in relation to competence findings, “deference

on these issues should be given to those ‘who see and hear what goes on in the court

room.’” Spurrier at ¶ 42, citing Vrabel at ¶ 33.

       {¶21} The exact argument raised by Peters that the foregoing standard should not

apply has previously been rejected by this court. In Spurrier, this court addressed the

argument that we should “apply ‘something more akin’ to a manifest weight standard” and

that a competent, credible evidence test “appears to be overly deferential.” Id. at ¶ 41.

We “decline[d] Mr. Spurrier’s request that this court reconsider the appropriateness of a

standard of review that is firmly established precedent.” Id. at ¶ 42. Peters presents no

additional authority or rationale justifying a decision to overturn this court’s prior holding

on this issue.

       {¶22} A review of the record indicates that there was reliable, credible evidence

supporting the court’s determination that Peters was competent to stand trial.            Dr.

Kapalczynski, who is board certified in adult and forensic psychiatry, treated Peters for

over four months and testified “with reasonable medical certainty, * * * that he was

competent to stand trial.” He provided extensive testimony about his treatment and

examination of Peters and explained reasons for the determination that Peters could

assist in his own defense. He determined that Peters had no impairment that would

                                              7

Case No. 2022-T-0106
preclude him from interacting with his counsel or the court and he was able to explain the

events leading to his arrest “in a way that would be helpful to his counsel.” He also opined

that Peters had an understanding of the charges and proceedings against him. Our

review of the plea colloquy reveals nothing that would suggest that the appellant was

incompetent.

       {¶23} Peters contends that “the record is quite clear that it would have simply been

impossible for Appellant’s Counsel to proceed to a trial under these conditions.” This is

conclusory and unsupported by specific references to evidence supporting such a

determination. It is contrary to the sole evidence presented at the competency hearing,

the testimony of Dr. Kapalczynski that Peters could assist in his defense and interact with

his counsel in a “productive” manner.

       {¶24} Peters questions his ability to competently testify, arguing that Dr.

Kapalczynski “seemed to focus on the fact that Appellant could be redirected when he

lost touch with a question,” and emphasizes this would not be possible if he were testifying

at trial. Dr. Kapalczynski did not indicate Peters would be unable to testify and, in fact,

explained that he had an understanding of the charges and the allegations against him.

While it is accurate that Dr. Kapalczynski testified that in some instances Peters required

an explanation of concepts to understand them, this did not indicate an inability to testify

regarding the facts of the case or answer questions that may be asked during his

testimony at trial.   The test for competency is not whether a defendant is able to

understand any question asked of him or every legal concept. It is whether he has

“sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational

understanding” and “a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings

                                             8

Case No. 2022-T-0106
against him.” (Citation omitted.) Godinez, 509 U.S. at 396, 113 S.Ct. 2680, 125 L.Ed.2d

321. There is reliable, credible evidence to demonstrate that these requirements were

met.

       {¶25} Peters next argues that “the Trial Court clearly indicated its understanding

that a mental health professional was to determine competency rather than the Trial Court

itself.” As explained above, the determination as to competency is made by the trial court

after holding a hearing on competency. Here, the trial court entered a judgment stating:

“Based on the competency report and testimony heard, this Court finds by a

preponderance of the evidence” that Peters was capable of understanding the

proceedings and assisting in his defense.       It further stated: “This Court finds the

Defendant is competent to stand trial.” There is no indication that it left the decision to

Dr. Kapalczynski but instead merely utilized his recommendation and testimony to

support its decision that Peters was competent.

       {¶26} Finally, we note that Peters observes, in his fact section without further

argument, that Dr. Kapalczynski did not agree with the prior doctors’ evaluations and

further had not dealt with a case involving Aarskog Syndrome, with which Peters had

previously been diagnosed. The fact that Dr. Kapalczynski disagreed with diagnoses

made in the prior competency evaluations does not invalidate his opinion, particularly

given that he spent several months treating Peters, unlike those doctors who performed

the initial evaluations. Neyland, 139 Ohio St.3d 353, 2014-Ohio-1914, 12 N.E.3d 1112,

at ¶ 61 (“[t]he trial court also reasonably determined that greater weight should be given

to testimony of a psychiatrist and a psychologist who examined Neyland during a 30-day

observational period rather than a psychiatrist who spent only a little more than an hour

                                            9

Case No. 2022-T-0106
with him”). Further, regardless of Dr. Kapalczynski’s experience with Aarskog Syndrome,

which was described as a genetic syndrome which can impact cognitive and behavioral

function, he was still able to determine from his observations, interactions, and testing

that Peters met the standard required for competency. “Diagnosis with a mental illness

is not dispositive of a criminal defendant’s competence to stand trial.” Spurrier, 2021-

Ohio-1061, at ¶ 48. See also State v. Roberts, 137 Ohio St.3d 230, 2013-Ohio-4580, 998

N.E.2d 1100, ¶ 90-93 (there was reliable, credible evidence to support a competency

finding where a psychologist did not know the defendant’s psychological history but based

his assessment on his own evaluation).

      {¶27} The sole assignment of error is without merit.

      {¶28} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Trumbull County Court of

Common Pleas, finding Peters competent to stand trial, is affirmed. Costs to be taxed

against appellant.

JOHN J. EKLUND, P.J.,

EUGENE A. LUCCI, J.,

concur.

                                           10

Case No. 2022-T-0106