State v. Cole
2015 Ohio 3793
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Defendant Blake A. Cole, age 19 with Cockayne Syndrome and developmental disabilities, was indicted for rape of a child under 10 and pleaded no contest; sentenced 15 years to life.
- Cole requested competency and insanity evaluations; two clinical psychologists (Dr. Kidd and Dr. Martin) evaluated him. Both concluded Cole was competent to stand trial and sane at the time of the offense.
- IQ testing produced a low score (~57) but examiners noted distraction and inconsistent effort; competency testing produced high scores (92 on Georgia Court Competency Test; 48/50 on CAST-MR).
- Defense initially filed an Anders brief; the appellate court appointed new counsel after finding a clerical error in the trial court’s termination entry.
- On remand, three appellate assignments: (1) correct the termination entry (it incorrectly said "guilty" rather than "no contest"); (2) challenge the voluntariness/knowing nature of the no-contest plea given Cole’s disabilities; (3) claim ineffective assistance for defense counsel’s stipulation to competency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Cole) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether the termination entry misstates the plea | The entry is a clerical error; Cole actually pled no contest | Entry incorrectly records plea as guilty and must be corrected | Court: Clerical error; remand for nunc pro tunc correction (sustained) |
| 2. Whether Cole’s no-contest plea was knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily entered | Court followed Crim.R.11; competency exams show understanding; plea colloquy showed understanding and waiver | Due to disabilities, plea should have been handled differently; he didn’t understand plea bargaining | Court: Totality of circumstances show plea was knowing, intelligent, voluntary; Crim.R.11 complied with (overruled) |
| 3. Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by stipulating to competency | Counsel reasonably relied on two expert reports; court independently found competency | Stipulation to competency foreclosed review and was deficient; counsel should have limited stipulation to experts’ testimony | Court: Not deficient; court made independent competency finding and no prejudice shown (overruled) |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedural framework for counsel filing a brief when no meritorious issues are found)
- Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1993) (same competency standard for pleading guilty and standing trial)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (Ohio 1990) (substantial compliance with Crim.R.11 for nonconstitutional rights)
- State v. Mink, 101 Ohio St.3d 350 (Ohio 2004) (competency standard and ineffective-assistance discussion)
- State v. Barker, 129 Ohio St.3d 472 (Ohio 2011) (plea must be knowing, intelligent, voluntary)
- State v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303 (Ohio 2011) (Crim.R.36 and use of nunc pro tunc to correct clerical mistakes)