State v. Hardin, 2021 Ohio 3764

Appellant Dearlo B. Hardin appealed convictions and sentences from multiple Sandusky County cases; this consolidated appeal concerns case No. 17CR292.
In 17CR292 Hardin pleaded guilty to two counts of second‑degree burglary; the trial court accepted the pleas and imposed two concurrent six‑year prison terms.
Hardin previously had other convictions (three burglaries and one rape) affirmed and obtained leave to reopen the appeal on an ineffective‑assistance claim.
Hardin contends trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a competency evaluation or hearing under R.C. 2945.37, citing mental‑health treatment, psychotropic medication, substance use, a pro se March 1 letter seeking an insanity plea, and alleged courtroom confusion.
The plea colloquy (April 2, 2018) showed Hardin identified his medications, stated he was lucid and able to think clearly, had consulted with counsel, and acknowledged understanding the proceedings. The trial court did not order a competency exam.
The Sixth District found the record did not demonstrate sufficient indicia of incompetence and concluded Hardin failed to prove both deficient counsel performance and prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Hardin)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to seek a competency evaluation/hearing before pleas	Counsel ignored clear signs of incompetence (medication, confusion, pro se request for insanity plea); had counsel acted Hardin would not have entered guilty/Alford pleas	Record shows Hardin was lucid, understood charges and options, consulted with counsel; competency is presumed; no sufficient indicia to trigger a hearing; no prejudice shown	Court affirmed: counsel not ineffective; record lacked sufficient indicia to require competency hearing and Hardin failed to show prejudice

North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1970) (defendant may knowingly and voluntarily enter a guilty plea while maintaining innocence under plea allowing concession of sufficient evidence)
State v. Neyland, 139 Ohio St.3d 353, 2014-Ohio-1914, 12 N.E.3d 1112 (Ohio 2014) (competency test: present ability to consult with counsel with reasonable degree of rational understanding and factual and rational understanding of proceedings)
State v. Montgomery, 148 Ohio St.3d 347, 2016-Ohio-5487, 71 N.E.3d 180 (Ohio 2016) (competency hearing required only when record contains sufficient indicia of incompetence)
State v. Hamblin, 37 Ohio St.3d 153, 524 N.E.2d 476 (Ohio 1988) (strong presumption that licensed counsel is competent in ineffective‑assistance review)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d 373 (Ohio 1989) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Phillips, 74 Ohio St.3d 72, 656 N.E.2d 643 (Ohio 1995) (deferential review of counsel; debatable tactics generally not ineffective)
State v. Bock, 28 Ohio St.3d 108, 502 N.E.2d 1016 (Ohio 1986) (incompetency not equivalent to mental instability; defendant can be psychotic yet competent to understand charges and assist counsel)