Court Opinion

ID: 9913810
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-28 20:06:50.738794+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:58:56.148982
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Haji, 2023-Ohio-4807.]

                       IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                           THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                UNION COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,
                                                        CASE NO. 14-23-02
       PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

       v.

HUSSEIN J. HAJI,                                        OPINION

       DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

                        Appeal from Marysville Municipal Court
                            Trial Court No. TRC2200001A

                       Judgment Reversed and Cause Remanded

                           Date of Decision: December 28, 2023

APPEARANCES:

        Alison Boggs for Appellant

        Courtland A. Perry and Andrew Bigler for Appellee
Case No. 14-23-02

WILLAMOWSKI, J.

          {¶1} Defendant-appellant Hussein J. Haji (“Haji”) brings this appeal from

the judgment of the Marysville Municipal Court finding him guilty of operating a

motor vehicle while under the influence. On appeal Haji claims that 1) the trial

court erred by accepting his guilty plea without first resolving the question of his

competency and 2) that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. For the

reasons set forth below, the judgment is reversed and the matter is remanded for

further proceedings.

          {¶2} On January 1, 2022, Ohio State Patrol Trooper Picklesimon

(“Picklesimon”) stopped a vehicle at 7:42 p.m. when he noticed it only had auxiliary

lighting in the front of the vehicle. The vehicle then passed a car and semi without

signaling. Picklesimon identified the driver as Haji and noted that Haji seemed

confused and lost. Picklesimon also noted that Haji’s eyes were blood-shot and

there was a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from the passenger side of

the vehicle. Picklesimon then conducted field sobriety tests on Haji, which Haji

failed.

          {¶3} Haji was charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the

influence in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) and R.C. 4511.19(A)(2), a third

offense in a ten-year period with a refusal to submit to blood alcohol testing, running

a red light in violation of R.C. 4511.13, failure to use his headlights in violation of

                                          -2-
Case No. 14-23-02

R.C. 4513.14, and possession of marijuana in violation of R.C. 2925.11(C)(2).

After entering pleas of not guilty, Haji was released on his own recognizance.

       {¶4} A pretrial hearing was held on April 1, 2022. Haji did not appear at the

hearing. At that time, the following discussion was held.

       The Court: Is your client here?

       Mr. Probst: He’s not. I – I’m prepared to offer an explanation, so.
       But, yeah, I’ve been in touch with Mr. Haji. I’ve represented him
       before. And his sister is actually out in the hallway if you wanted to
       hear from her. But I spoke with him on Wednesday. He – I
       understand he’s having some serious – some mental health issues, and
       it got so bad last night. I got a call from his sister this morning who
       was saying that he had a panic attack. He was up all night. He’s –
       she says that he’s erratic. He’s having just serious mental health
       issues. So he didn’t show up. I can say this. I, you know, in my
       opinion, Mr. Haji is not a flight risk. He’s always been in touch with
       me. I’m retained. I know he’s not here. I guess I’m asking the Court
       – what I want to do ultimately is I want to try to see if I can get him
       an evaluation. I think he probably needs a competency/mental health
       evaluation. * * * Is there – is there – could the Court put an order on
       or who would do something like that up here in Municipal Court?

       The Court: * * * As far as a competency issue, if you feel there is an
       issue, you’ll probably need to file something with the Court. That will
       be at your expense to have the competency. I can stay the proceedings
       until you have your test. And then if you’ll file the results of the test.

(Tr. 4-5). The trial court then granted a continuance to have the competency

evaluation completed. On May 23, the trial court filed an entry setting a new pretrial

date and noting that no evaluation had been filed with the court at that time.

                                          -3-
Case No. 14-23-02

       {¶5} The next pretrial was held on June 17, 2022. At that hearing, Haji again

did not appear. The following dialogue occurred between the trial court and defense

counsel.

       The Court: Why isn’t your client here this morning?

       Mr. Probst: * * * He is – I spoke with my client’s sister as well as a
       case worker. I believe that my client – and I’m not going to be able
       to confirm because they’re not going to give me HIPAA information.
       But I believe he’s at the Mt. Carmel Behavioral Center. He’s got a lot
       of mental health issues. And I had spoken with a woman who is his
       prior case worker. And she told me that it’s her understanding that he
       is in Mt. Carmel Behavioral Center. That’s all I know right now. You
       know, this – this young man has a lot of mental health issues. * * *
       He just has some serious mental health issues. And so I haven’t been
       able to confirm where he is.

       The Court: If he’s at a facility, why hasn’t there been a competency
       report made as you requested at his expense?

       Mr. Probst: Yeah. Well, my understanding was that he was,
       according to his sister, he was – had been shot in the leg and he didn’t
       make it to his appointment. I don’t know. I mean, I think that he has
       a lot of serious mental health issues * * *.

       ***

       I’m frustrated too, your Honor. I would like to get this taken care of.
       I mean, I have – I have family telling me that he’s got serious mental
       health issues. And I can’t seem to get anything done. Is that a result
       of his mental health issues? Maybe. I don’t know. * * *

(Tr. 4-6). At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court set the case for another

pretrial in an attempt to have Haji present.

       {¶6} At the July 8, 2022 pretrial, counsel for Haji informed the trial court

that Haji had been self-admitted into the Mount Carmel Behavioral Health Center

                                         -4-
Case No. 14-23-02

on June 7 and then discharged himself on June 15. Counsel then informed the trial

court that at that time, Haji was in the Franklin County Jail for a probation violation.

Counsel then requested that the trial court issue a bench warrant to get Haji

transferred to the local jail so that a competency evaluation could be completed.

Counsel again indicated to the trial court that in his opinion, there were significant

issues with Haji’s competency. The trial court noted at this hearing that he had

never seen the defendant. The trial court then agreed to issue a bench warrant. Haji

was arrested pursuant to the bench warrant and a bond hearing was held on July 15,

2022. The trial court then released Haji on his own recognizance and the matter

was continued again until September 7, 2022, to allow Haji to secure a competency

evaluation.

       {¶7} On September 7, 2022, a competency hearing was held. At that time,

Haji presented some medical records showing a general medical exam.                 No

competency evaluation was presented and the trial court made no decision regarding

competency. However, the issue of competency continued to be raised throughout

the proceedings.

       {¶8} At the December 14, 2022 pretrial, counsel for Haji again indicated that

he had concerns with Haji’s competency. Counsel made the following statements

to the trial court.

       Your Honor, so I have some concerns. [Haji] came into my office
       yesterday and initially indicated he didn’t know what was going on
       and then he would flip and tell me he does know what’s going on. All

                                          -5-
Case No. 14-23-02

       this led to that he said he would plead guilty to the OVI
       (INAUDIBLE). * * * So quite frankly, here’s my concerns, Judge.
       I’ve had these concerns from a long time ago. I wish my client would
       have complied. But I think that he’s got some serious mental health,
       psychiatric problems. I have some medical records that – that’s been
       given to me that, of course, I’ve never been authorized to disclose to
       the Court. They aren’t competency records. But they are records that
       cause great serious red flags with me as a lawyer. And ethically, I
       don’t think I can go forward with a plea with Mr. Haji because I have
       such serious concerns.

(Tr. 5-6). The trial court noted that it had given Haji time to obtain the competency

hearing at his expense. The trial court then indicated that he would not grant any

more continuances.

       {¶9} On December 15, 2022, the trial court held a change of plea hearing at

which Haji entered a plea of guilty to the OVI charge and the remaining charges

were dismissed. Before accepting the change of plea, the trial court addressed Haji,

but only asked yes or no questions. Haji answered “Yes, sir” to all of the questions.

When the trial court asked Haji if he had any questions, Haji again answered “Yes,

sir”, but no one followed up with Haji as to what questions he had. (Tr. 13). The

trial court then accepted the guilty plea and found Haji to be guilty. Haji appeals

from this judgment and on appeal raises the following assignments of error.

                            First Assignment of Error

       The trial court erred in accepting [Haji’s] guilty plea before
       conducting a competency hearing pursuant to R.C. 2945.37 and
       2945.371.

                                         -6-
Case No. 14-23-02

                                  Second Assignment of Error

         [Haji] received ineffective assistance of counsel, in violation of his
         constitutional right to be represented effectively by counsel.

                                       Competency Evaluation

         {¶10} In the first assignment of error, Haji claims that the trial court erred by

accepting his guilty plea before conducting a competency hearing. The issue of a

defendant’s competence to stand trial is controlled by R.C. 2945.37, which states in

pertinent part as follows.1

         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.

         (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 (I) 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.

         ***

         H) Municipal courts shall follow the procedures set forth in sections
         2945.37 to 2945.402 of the Revised Code. Except as provided in

1
 The quoted version of the statute was in effect from August 3, 2021 to April 5, 2023, so would be the version
applicable to this case at the time of the proceedings.

                                                     -7-
Case No. 14-23-02

       section 2945.371 of the Revised Code, a municipal court shall not
       order an evaluation of the defendant’s competence to stand trial or the
       defendant’s mental condition at the time of the commission of the
       offense to be conducted at any hospital operated by the department of
       mental health and addiction services. Those evaluations shall be
       performed through community resources including, but not limited to,
       certified forensic centers, court probation departments, and
       community mental health services providers. All expenses of the
       evaluations shall be borne by the legislative authority of the municipal
       court, as defined in section 1901.03 of the Revised Code, and shall be
       taxed as costs in the case.

R.C. 2945.37 (emphasis added). Further, R.C. 2945.371(A) indicates that “[i]f the

issue of a defendant’s competence to stand trial is raised * * * the court may order

one or more evaluations of the defendant’s present mental condition * * *.”

(Emphasis added).

       {¶11} Here, the issue was raised by defense counsel at the April hearing.

Once the issue was raised the trial court was required to hold a hearing. “[A]n

inquiry into the defendant’s competency is necessary to ensure his right to a fair

trial.” State v. Shine, 2018-Ohio-2491, 115 N.E.3d 723, ¶ 14 (7th Dist.). The State

argues that the trial court did hold a hearing on September 7, 2022. The record

shows that a hearing was held for the purpose of a competency evaluation review.

However, the record also shows that no evaluation was completed. The transcript

shows that at no point did the trial court speak with the defendant at that hearing.

At the change of plea hearing, Haji did not testify, instead simply answering yes or

no to questions about whether he understood the rights he was waiving by pleading

guilty. Thus, Haji’s responses to the questions and the trial court’s interactions with

                                         -8-
Case No. 14-23-02

Haji prior the change of plea were insufficient to demonstrate competency. See

State v. Flanagan, 2017-Ohio-955, 86 N.E.3d 681 (8th Dist.). The trial court did

not make a finding of competency following the hearing. Additionally, there was

indicia of incompetence in the record based upon the statements of counsel and

Haji’s repeated inpatient stays at mental health facilities. Given all of this, the

procedures in this case did not comply with the statutory requirements, which led to

Haji entering his plea with the issue of his competency unresolved.

       {¶12} Additionally, the April hearing did not result in an order for Haji to

submit to an evaluation. A review of the record shows that no court order that Haji

obtain an evaluation was ever made despite numerous statements of concern by

counsel. All the trial court did was grant a continuation to allow Haji to obtain a

competency evaluation at his expense. This is contrary to the statutory mandate that

all expenses of the evaluation are to be borne by the State and taxed as costs in the

case. Given the failure to comply with statutory mandates to determine competency

once the issue is raised, this Court sustains the first assignment of error.

                           Effective Assistance of Counsel

       {¶13} Haji’s second assignment of error claims that he was denied the

effective assistance of counsel. Having determined that the trial court erred by

failing to determine the competency of Haji after the issue was repeatedly raised,

the issue of the effectiveness of counsel is moot. Pursuant to App.R. 12(A)(1)(c),

this Court will not address the second assignment of error at this time.

                                          -9-
Case No. 14-23-02

           {¶14} Having found error prejudicial to the appellant in the particulars

assigned and argued, the judgment of the Marysville Municipal Court is reversed

and the matter is remanded for further proceedings in accord with this opinion.

                                                                                    Judgment Reversed
                                                                                  And Cause Remanded

WALDICK, J. concurs.

MILLER, P.J., concurring separately.

           {¶15} I concur with the judgment of the majority and agree that the trial court

never resolved the issue of Haji’s competence to stand trial. I write separately to

identify some of the challenges a court must overcome when a criminal defendant

raises psychiatric issues as part of his or her criminal case.

           {¶16} The record in this case is replete with defense counsel’s opinion and

concern that his client was suffering from serious mental health issues. From the

record before us, it appears trial counsel was correct to raise the issues of Haji’s

competency.2 Counsel had been informed by Haji’s sister and a social worker of

Haji’s psychiatric history and various hospitalizations during the course of the case.

Counsel continued to raise this issue throughout the proceedings, even after the

September 7, 2022 competency hearing. During a telephonic final pretrial the day

before the scheduled jury trial, counsel reiterated to the court:

           I’ve had these concerns from a long time ago. I wish my client would
           have complied. But I think that he’s got some serious mental health,

2
    This does not mean we condone trial counsel’s failure to file a written motion as instructed by the court.

                                                      -10-
Case No. 14-23-02

       psychiatric problems. I have some medical records that – that’s been
       given to me that, of course, I’ve never been authorized to disclose to
       the Court. They aren’t competency records. But they are records that
       cause great serious red flags with me as a lawyer. And ethically, I
       don’t think I can go forward with a plea with Mr. Haji because I have
       such serious concerns.

(Dec. 14, 2022 Tr. at 5-6).

       {¶17} Faced with a lack of evidence to refute the presumption of competency

contained in R.C. 2945.37(G), a case that had been pending for a year, and a jury

scheduled to appear the next morning, the trial court understandably used this final

pretrial to push for a resolution. However, when the court asked if the defense was

prepared to go forward with the jury trial, counsel responded, “No. I think he would

probably do a plea to – to the charge before he goes to a jury trial. But I just, you

know, like I said, I just have my concerns.” (Id. at 9-10). In spite of these concerns,

the trial court took Haji’s plea the next morning without inquiring further of counsel

or Haji regarding any mental health issues.

       {¶18} In my view the trial court erred by placing all responsibility on defense

counsel to obtain an evaluation to demonstrate his client’s incompetence. It is

evident that counsel failed to obtain the requisite evaluation or appropriate

information to present at the September 7, 2022 competency hearing. Counsel was

hindered by his client’s lack of cooperation, hospitalizations and incarcerations.

These issues are not atypical of a defendant suffering from mental health issues.

                                         -11-
Case No. 14-23-02

       {¶19} In a criminal action, the court, the prosecutor or the defense may raise

the issue of a defendant’s competence to stand trial. R.C. 2945.37(B). Certainly if

the court or the prosecutor raise questions of a defendant’s competency, the process

of determining competency becomes less adversarial and more a matter of providing

due process in order to effectuate justice. No less is true when the matter is

legitimately raised by defense counsel.

       {¶20} R.C. 2945.37(H) indicates that municipal courts shall follow the

procedures outlined in R.C. 2945.37 to 2945.402 relating to competency and not

guilty by reason of insanity. This section reads:

              Municipal courts shall follow the procedures set forth in
       sections 2945.37 to 2945.402 of the Revised Code. Except as
       provided in section 2945.371 of the Revised Code, a municipal
       court shall not order an evaluation of the defendant’s
       competence to stand trial or the defendant’s mental condition
       at the time of the commission of the offense to be conducted at
       any hospital operated by the department of mental health and
       addiction services. Those evaluations shall be performed
       through community resources including, but not limited to,
       certified forensic centers, court probation departments, and
       community mental health services providers. All expenses of
       the evaluations shall be borne by the legislative authority of the
       municipal court, as defined in section 1901.03 of the Revised
       Code, and shall be taxed as costs in the case. If a defendant is
       found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of
       insanity, a municipal court may commit the defendant as
       provided in sections 2945.38 to 2945.402 of the Revised Code.

R.C. 2945.37(H). Further, R.C. 2945.371(A) indicates that “[i]f the issue of a

defendant’s competence to stand trial is raised * * * the court may order one or

                                          -12-
Case No. 14-23-02

more evaluations of the defendant’s present mental condition * * *.” (Emphasis

added).

       {¶21} Reading these two code sections in pari materia, shows that municipal

courts must order competency evaluations and direct that they be completed through

community resources and paid for by the legislative authority of the municipal court.

Additionally, because the municipality is to pay the expense of the evaluation, the

court will necessarily have to issue one or more orders directing the municipal

auditor or other official to make such payment and then assessing the payment as

cost in the case. Consequently, a municipal court cannot simply direct a defendant

to obtain a competency evaluation, much less to do so at his or her own expense.

       {¶22} The record shows this case remained on the trial court’s docket for an

inordinate amount of time due to defense counsel’s repeated continuance requests

in order to obtain the desired evaluation. The process was stymied at multiple points

by Haji’s hospitalizations for a gunshot wound and mental health treatment. (July

8, 2022 Tr. at 4). While it is understandable that the court and counsel would expect

the mental health providers treating a defendant in a hospital setting to be able to

provide a competency evaluation, frequently this is not the case.

       {¶23} Also complicating the court proceedings was the lack of participation

by Haji, who frequently failed to appear—sometimes due to his hospitalizations, at

least once because he was in custody and sometimes without any valid explanation.

At one point when Haji was in custody in another county, counsel suggested the

                                        -13-
Case No. 14-23-02

court issue a bench warrant to “get him transferred up here and we can get him

assessed and we can deal with it.” (Id. at 6). The court did issue a bench warrant

and Haji was transferred to the custody of the Union County Sheriff. However, at

a subsequent bond hearing, Haji was released on his own recognizance.

Considering the difficulty in having Haji evaluated, the court would have been

within its authority to release Haji from custody with an additional bond condition

that he submit to an evaluation. R.C. 2945.371(C)(1) provides, “If the court orders

an evaluation * * *, the defendant shall be available at the times and places

established by the examiners who are to conduct the evaluation. The court may

order a defendant who has been released on bail or recognizance to submit to an

evaluation under this section.” Further, if a defendant released on bond refuses

to submit to an evaluation, the court may, in appropriate circumstances, utilize

the provisions of R.C. 2945.371(C)(2) and (D) to facilitate the evaluation

process.

      {¶24} Because defense counsel was left to obtain a competency evaluation

without the assistance of the court utilizing the statutory tools available to

accomplish the evaluation, the issue of Haji’s competency to proceed was never

properly resolved. Consequently the court’s judgment must be reversed and the

case must be remanded.

                                       -14-