State v. Cooper, 2019 Ohio 3919

Defendant Jeffrey Cooper pled guilty to first-degree misdemeanor assault and was sentenced to 180 days in jail with 120 days suspended and two years of community control (conditions: no contact with victim/mosque, stay off the assault location, and complete grief counseling at Woodhaven).
Cooper allegedly failed to report to the probation department as ordered; a violation notice was filed and an initial hearing was held in his absence.
Cooper was arrested on a bench warrant, admitted at a later hearing that he had not met probation after jail but claimed the Miamisburg probation officer arranged his admission to Woodhaven; defense counsel missed one hearing but appeared the next day.
The Dayton Municipal Court revoked community control, imposed the 120-day suspended jail term (with credit for 11 days), to be served concurrently with existing Miamisburg sentences, and indicated possible release if Miamisburg released him.
Cooper appealed, raising three assignments of error: (1) ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to request competency evaluation and poor communication), (2) trial court’s failure to order a competency evaluation sua sponte, and (3) that his plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary (Crim.R. 11 noncompliance). The court affirmed the revocation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by not ordering a competency evaluation sua sponte	No; record contained no indicia of incompetence to require an evaluation	Trial court acknowledged possible mental-capacity issues and should have ordered evaluation	No error; no basis in record to order competency exam
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to request a competency evaluation and for poor communication	Counsel’s performance was reasonable; no indication of incompetence and counsel advocated at hearing	Counsel failed to request competency evaluation, missed a hearing, and did not communicate with Cooper adequately	No ineffective-assistance; performance fell within reasonable range and no prejudice shown
Whether Cooper’s plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary (Crim.R. 11 compliance)	Issues could and should have been raised on direct appeal from the conviction	Plea colloquy was inadequate and Cooper lacked understanding, shown at revocation hearing	Claims barred by res judicata (could have been raised on direct appeal); not considered on revocation appeal

State v. Neyland, 12 N.E.3d 1112 (Ohio 2014) (articulates competency-to-stand-trial standard referencing Dusky)
State v. Berry, 650 N.E.2d 433 (Ohio 1995) (discusses Dusky competency standard)
Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960) (established competent-to-stand-trial test)
State v. Rubenstein, 531 N.E.2d 732 (Ohio App. 1987) (factors to consider when determining competence)
State v. Bock, 502 N.E.2d 1016 (Ohio 1986) (mental illness alone does not establish incompetence)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Bradley, 538 N.E.2d 373 (Ohio 1989) (applies Strickland standard in Ohio)