State v. Garber, 2022 Ohio 3770

Appellant Christopher Garber pled guilty to one count of importuning (a fifth-degree felony) on August 9, 2021; plea accepted and sentencing continued.
On October 6, 2021 the trial court sentenced Garber to nine months in prison, five years mandatory postrelease control, ordered court costs, and designated him a Tier 1 sexual offender; judgment journalized October 7, 2021.
Garber appealed, arguing trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a competency evaluation despite Garber’s known intellectual challenges and apparent confusion during the plea colloquy.
The record shows defense counsel met with Garber multiple times, acknowledged Garber’s intellectual limitations, discussed competency and plea issues with him (and his parents), and concluded Garber could knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily plead guilty.
During the plea hearing Garber displayed brief confusion twice (when the court read the full statutory citation/degree and when asked about promises), but in each instance he consulted with counsel, received clarification, and then confirmed he understood the plea and that it was voluntary.
The court of appeals held counsel was not ineffective for failing to seek a competency evaluation and affirmed the trial court’s judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a competency evaluation	Garber: counsel should have requested a competency evaluation given known intellectual delays and visible confusion at plea	State: record shows Garber could consult with counsel, understood proceedings, and counsel reasonably investigated competence	Counsel not ineffective; no sufficient indicia of incompetence to warrant evaluation; conviction affirmed

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (defines competency standard: ability to consult with counsel with reasonable degree of rational understanding and factual/rational understanding of proceedings)
Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (competency and plea standards; competency determination required only when competence is in doubt)
State v. Hale, 892 N.E.2d 864 (Ohio Supreme Court applying Strickland standard)
State v. Lawson, 179 N.E.3d 1216 (Ohio Supreme Court: counsel ineffective only where investigation into possible incompetence was inadequate; no incompetence where defendant lacked sufficient indicia)
State v. Thomas, 779 N.E.2d 1017 (discusses indicia threshold for competency hearing)
State v. Scott, 748 N.E.2d 11 (places burden to rebut presumption of competence on challenger)
State v. Sanders, 761 N.E.2d 18 (defines reasonable probability standard for prejudice under Strickland)
State v. McMillan, 100 N.E.3d 1222 (learning or intellectual disability alone does not establish incompetence)