State v. Blankenship, 2019 Ohio 1304

Defendant Kelsie Marie Blankenship was indicted on multiple felonies including two counts of murder, felonious assault, domestic violence, and endangering children.
The trial court granted the State’s motion ordering a competency evaluation of Blankenship.
Blankenship appealed the order requiring the competency evaluation, asserting it was a final appealable order.
The State moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing the competency-evaluation order is not final and thus not appealable.
The appellate court considered whether the order was final or otherwise immediately appealable under Ohio law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an order requiring a competency evaluation is a final appealable order	State: order is interlocutory and not final; appeal should be dismissed	Blankenship: the order is final and appealable; she also argued it forces disclosure of attorney-client communications and is a provisional remedy	The court held the competency-evaluation order is not a final appealable order and dismissed the appeal
Whether a competency determination alone qualifies as a provisional remedy under R.C. 2505.02(B)(4)	State: mere competency determination does not meet the statute’s denial-of-remedy requirement	Blankenship: claimed the order is a provisional remedy because it implicates privileged communications	The court held a competency determination by itself does not satisfy R.C. 2505.02(B)(4); the provisional-remedy exception requires that, without immediate appeal, the order would deny a meaningful and effective remedy

Smith v. Chen, 142 Ohio St.3d 411 (2015) (Ohio constitutional and statutory limits on appellate jurisdiction; appeals permitted only from final judgments or orders)
State v. Upshaw, 110 Ohio St.3d 189 (2006) (order finding incompetence and committing defendant to institution is final and appealable)