State v. Fitzpatrick, 2022 Ohio 4381

Stanley Fitzpatrick was convicted of three counts of aggravated murder and sentenced to death in 2002; the Ohio Supreme Court previously affirmed his convictions and sentence.
Ohio enacted R.C. 2929.025 (effective April 21, 2021), rendering persons with specified diagnoses (e.g., schizophrenia, bipolar) who meet statutory criteria ineligible for the death penalty; the law was made retroactive to those already sentenced to death.
Fitzpatrick filed a successive postconviction petition asserting he met the SMI statute’s criteria; the trial court denied the state’s motion to dismiss and scheduled a hearing on the SMI claim.
The state moved to appoint and fund a forensic psychologist to examine Fitzpatrick under R.C. 2929.025(F)(1); the trial court granted the motion and ordered the state’s expert to evaluate and report on Fitzpatrick’s alleged intellectual disability and serious mental illness.
Fitzpatrick appealed the order compelling the state-chosen psychiatric examination, arguing it affected substantial rights (including the Fifth Amendment) and was a final, appealable order; the appellate court considered only whether the order was final and appealable.
The court held the order was interlocutory and not a final, appealable order under R.C. 2505.02, and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court’s order compelling a state-selected forensic psychological exam is a final, appealable order as a special proceeding affecting a substantial right under R.C. 2505.02(B)(2)	State: The order is a routine pretrial evaluation step and not an appealable final order; the SMI statute authorizes evaluation and both sides may present examiners.	Fitzpatrick: The order implicates his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and affects substantial rights under the new SMI statute, so it is immediately appealable.	Court: Order does not affect a substantial right under R.C. 2505.02(B)(2); precedent allows rebuttal exams when defendant introduces psychiatric evidence, so no immediate appeal.
Whether the order is appealable as a final order granting/denying a provisional remedy under R.C. 2505.02(B)(4)	State: Even if SMI proceedings are ancillary, the psychiatric-exam order does not determine the postconviction proceeding’s merits and does not prevent meaningful relief after final judgment.	Fitzpatrick: The exam order is part of the SMI proceeding and thus implicates provisional-remedy reviewability.	Court: Order fails the (B)(4) requirements because it does not determine the postconviction action and Fitzpatrick will have meaningful appellate remedies after final judgment; appeal is premature.

State v. Fitzpatrick, 102 Ohio St.3d 321 (Ohio 2004) (prior affirmance of convictions and death sentence)
State v. Lawson, 165 Ohio St.3d 445 (Ohio 2021) (retroactivity and filing window for SMI-based postconviction petitions)
State v. Madison, 160 Ohio St.3d 232 (Ohio 2020) (compelled psychiatric exams proper when defendant introduces psychiatric evidence)
Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454 (U.S. 1981) (Fifth Amendment limits on psychiatric exams when defendant does not present psychiatric evidence)
Kansas v. Cheever, 571 U.S. 87 (U.S. 2013) (prosecution may use defendant’s compelled psychiatric exam to rebut defendant’s psychiatric evidence)
Buchanan v. Kentucky, 483 U.S. 402 (U.S. 1987) (reciprocity in use of psychiatric examination testimony in capital sentencing)
State v. Goff, 128 Ohio St.3d 169 (Ohio 2010) (defendant who injects mental-state evidence opens door to state exam)
State v. Upshaw, 110 Ohio St.3d 189 (Ohio 2006) (order committing incompetent defendant is final and appealable; distinguished from mere evaluation orders)
State v. Muncie, 91 Ohio St.3d 440 (Ohio 2001) (framework for treating "provisional remedy" proceedings and appellate finality)
State ex rel. McGinty v. Eighth Dist. Court of Appeals, 142 Ohio St.3d 100 (Ohio 2015) (interlocutory appeals are disfavored)