State v. Ingram, 2019 Ohio 2438

Ingram pleaded guilty in June 2017 to receiving stolen property and was sentenced to community control with placement at a community-based correctional facility (CBCF).
While at the CBCF in late 2017, staff found Ingram with a cell phone; he confronted staff, kicked open interior doors, and fled after staff unlocked the exterior door to prevent mass breakage.
He was charged in February 2018 with escape and vandalism (vandalism was later nolled); he also faced a probation-violation hearing on the earlier receiving-stolen-property case.
In July 2018 Ingram pleaded guilty to escape, was sentenced to 3 years for escape and 18 months for the probation violation, and the court ordered the terms be served consecutively for a total of 4.5 years.
On appeal Ingram argued: (1) the trial court should have sua sponte ordered a competency evaluation, (2) consecutive sentences were improper, and (3) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request competency testing and object to consecutive sentences.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court erred by not sua sponte ordering a competency examination	Court: competency required only if record shows sufficient indicia of incompetence	Ingram: he showed signs (inattention, irrationality) and thus court should have ordered evaluation	No error; record lacked sufficient indicia of incompetence and Ingram responded appropriately at plea colloquy
Whether consecutive sentences were improperly imposed	Court: consecutive terms permissible if statutory findings made and entered	Ingram: consecutive sentences disproportionate given no physical injury; court retaliated for staff conduct	No error; court made required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings and incorporated them into the entry; record supports findings (criminal history, on community control, vandalism, escape, seven months at large)
Whether counsel was ineffective for not requesting competency exam	N/A (appellate review of counsel)	Ingram: counsel should have sought competency testing	Denied summarily because underlying claims lacked merit, so no deficient performance shown
Whether counsel was ineffective for not objecting to consecutive terms	N/A	Ingram: counsel should have objected at sentencing	Denied for same reason: no error in sentencing, so no ineffective assistance shown

State v. Williams, 23 Ohio St.3d 16 (1986) (defendant bears burden to prove incompetency by preponderance)
State v. Berry, 72 Ohio St.3d 354 (1995) (due process forbids trying an incompetent defendant)
State v. Bolin, 128 Ohio App.3d 58 (1998) (competency standard for pleading guilty equals competency to stand trial)
State v. Ahmed, 103 Ohio St.3d 27 (2004) (competency inquiry required only where record contains sufficient indicia of incompetence)
State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (trial court must make and incorporate statutory findings when imposing consecutive sentences)