State v. Austin, 2010 Ohio 6583

Austin was convicted in Mahoning County for kidnapping with a repeat violent offender specification and aggravated burglary with a repeat violent offender specification, each first-degree felonies.
He also faced felonious assault and attempted murder charges, but was found not guilty of those counts.
He received a maximum aggregate sentence of 40 years, with the four maximum terms ordered consecutively.
The trial court considered serious psychological harm to the victim as a factor under R.C. 2929.12(B)(2) during sentencing.
Defense moved for competency evaluations pretrial; the court denied and later conducted a competency determination before trial.
This appeal challenges the sentencing rationale and the alleged mandatory competency hearing issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the court impermissibly fact-find at sentencing by relying on serious psychological harm?	Austin argues jury must determine all elements including that factor.	Austin contends Blakely/Foster require no non-element facts for max/consecutive sentences.	No reversible error; factor was permissible under 2929.12 and did not violate Blakely/Foster.
Was a mandatory competency hearing required when defense raised competency before trial?	State asserts hearing occurred and was proper; if not, harmless error.	Austin contends no proper competency hearing was held.	Competency hearing held within statutory limits; even if error, harmless.

Foster v. Ohio, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 2006) (unconstitutional mandatory sentencing findings; court may consider factors under 2929.12)
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (U.S. 2004) (jury trial right not violated when judge fact-finds for sentencing within statutory factors)
State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (Ohio 2008) (clear/convincing standard; abuse of discretion review for sentencing)
State v. Mathis, 109 Ohio St.3d 54 (Ohio 2006) (statutory factors allowed to be considered; no requirement of jury-found exact facts)
State v. Gratz, 7th Dist. No. 08MA101, 2009-Ohio-695 (Ohio 2009) (whether 2929.12 considerations sustain maximum/consecutive sentences)
State v. Jones, 7th Dist. Nos. 08JE20 & 08JE29, 2010-Ohio-2704 (Ohio 2010) (recognizes discretion in sentencing; factors may be considered)
State v. Simmons, 7th Dist. No. 07JE22, 2008-Ohio-3337 (Ohio 2008) (permissible consideration of factors in 2929.12 when evaluating sentence)
State v. Were, 118 Ohio St.3d 448 (Ohio 2008) (competency/sanity considerations; testing of indicia of incompetence)
State v. Murphy, 173 Ohio App.3d 221 (Ohio 2007) (competency request before trial requires hearing; record supports findings)
State v. Bock, 28 Ohio St.3d 108 (Ohio 1986) (harmless error when competency issue arises but defendant participates in trial)