State v. Dickerson
2021 Ohio 3257
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Dontez Dickerson was indicted on two counts of rape and one count of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor (13-year-old victim); the State later dismissed the rape counts and proceeded on the fourth-degree unlawful sexual-conduct count.
- Defense moved for competency and insanity evaluations, citing developmental disabilities and prior juvenile findings of incompetency.
- Netcare Forensic Center evaluated Dickerson, diagnosing several mental-health disorders but concluding he did not have an intellectual disability, understood the proceedings, could assist counsel, and was sane at the time of the offense.
- At a competency hearing defense counsel stipulated to the Netcare report; the trial court found Dickerson competent to stand trial and to enter a plea.
- Dickerson pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, sought SORN diversion/ community control, but the court imposed 18 months’ imprisonment.
- Dickerson appealed, raising (1) incompetency to stand trial, (2) improper prison sentence instead of community control/SORN diversion, and (3) ineffective assistance for counsel’s stipulation to the competency report.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competency to stand trial | Netcare forensic evaluation is reliable; court followed procedures and defendant is competent | Dickerson suffered developmental disabilities and prior juvenile incompetency; competency finding was erroneous | Trial court did not abuse discretion; detailed forensic report and hearing support competency finding; assignment overruled |
| Sentencing — prison vs community control/SORN diversion | Court had statutory discretion to impose prison for a fourth‑degree sex offense; court considered PSI and sentencing statutes | Dickerson argued community control/SORN diversion was appropriate given mental/cognitive deficits and youth | Sentence within statutory range; court considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12; no clear-and-convincing basis to disturb sentence; assignment overruled |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel for stipulating to competency report | Counsel’s stipulation and tactical decision not to seek another evaluation were within professional range; no prejudice shown | Counsel incompetent for not requesting independent evaluation, prejudicing competency result/plea | Strickland not satisfied: counsel not shown incompetent and no reasonable probability of different outcome; assignment overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (1975) (due‑process standard requires defendants be competent to stand trial)
- Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960) (competency test: factual and rational understanding and ability to consult with counsel)
- Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (1993) (same competency standard applies to pleading guilty)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard)
- Bock v. Ohio, 28 Ohio St.3d 108 (1986) (mental illness does not necessarily equal incompetency)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)