State v. Myers, 2022 Ohio 4615

Marvin L. Myers was indicted on fleeing/eluding (R.C. 2921.331) and vehicular assault (R.C. 2903.08), both third-degree felonies, after a high‑speed chase that ended in a crash injuring a sheriff’s deputy.
Troopers testified Myers accelerated, ignored signals, reached speeds over 100–130 mph, drove into a field, struck a sheriff’s cruiser, and admitted he fled because he had warrants. Video and eyewitnesses tied Myers to the driver’s seat.
Myers had a prior trial-court finding of incompetence in an earlier case but was restored to competency on July 28, 2021, nine days before his indictment in this case.
On the morning of trial Myers sought a continuance to obtain new counsel and had earlier filed a pro se speedy‑trial motion that was struck; his counsel declined to file a suppression motion to preserve speedy‑trial rights. The court denied the continuance.
A jury convicted Myers on both counts; the court imposed consecutive terms (36 months for failure to comply; a mandatory five‑year term for vehicular assault), lifetime license suspension, and post‑release control.
Myers appealed, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel did not request a competency evaluation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for not requesting a competency evaluation	Counsel need not request evaluation absent indicia of incompetence; no evidence on record supported incompetence	Counsel was ineffective for failing to seek evaluation given prior incompetency finding and courtroom indicators	No ineffective assistance; counsel's performance not deficient because no sufficient indicia of incompetence existed
Whether a prior incompetency finding in a different case required inquiry here	Prior finding irrelevant to present competency unless current condition shown	Prior incompetency should trigger further inquiry or evaluation	Prior finding alone insufficient; competency must be shown by present mental condition
Whether Myers’s rejection of a plea and pro se filings indicate incompetence	Such actions are consistent with competent participation and do not show incapacity	Rejection of plea and pro se speedy‑trial filing show confusion and incompetence	Refusal of counsel’s advice and pro se motions do not prove incompetence; may indicate capacity to participate
Whether counsel’s tactical choice (no suppression motion) was deficient	Tactical choices to preserve speedy‑trial rights are reasonable; suppression would not change overwhelming evidence	Failing to move to suppress was deficient assistance	Strategic decision was reasonable; failure to move did not constitute ineffective assistance

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑part ineffective assistance test)
Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (due process requires competency to stand trial)
Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (competency standard: understand proceedings and assist counsel)
State v. Smith, 89 Ohio St.3d 323 (discusses when counsel should raise competency concerns)
State v. Neyland, 139 Ohio St.3d 353 (clarifies competency test: consult with lawyer and factual/rational understanding)
State v. Johnson, 112 Ohio St.3d 210 (counsel's unsupported assertions of mental illness insufficient to require evaluation)
State v. Berry, 72 Ohio St.3d 354 (due process bars trial of incompetent defendants)
State v. Jordan, 101 Ohio St.3d 216 (defendant bears burden to prove incompetence by preponderance)
State v. Lawson, 165 Ohio St.3d 445 (defendant's refusal of counsel advice does not demonstrate incompetence)