State v. Purdy, 2022 Ohio 1131

Auglaize County indicted Charles M. Purdy, II on 14 counts of pandering obscenity involving a minor; he initially pleaded not guilty but, on July 19, 2021, pleaded guilty pursuant to a negotiated plea with a joint-sentencing recommendation.
The trial court accepted the pleas, sentenced Purdy to 18 months on Counts 1–8 to run consecutively and 12 months on Counts 9–14 to run concurrently with Counts 1–8, yielding a 144-month aggregate term, and classified him as a Tier II sex offender.
At the change-of-plea hearing Purdy disclosed a prior traumatic brain injury (from military service) and said it prevented him from passing a nursing physical; he did not assert incompetence and neither counsel nor the State requested a competency evaluation.
The trial court conducted a colloquy, found Purdy understood the proceedings, and concluded the brain injury did not affect competency; no sua sponte competency hearing was ordered.
Purdy later filed a delayed appeal arguing (1) the court erred by failing to order a competency evaluation sua sponte, and (2) defense counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to request such an evaluation or expert evaluation prior to plea/sentencing.
The appellate court reviewed the competency decision for abuse of discretion and ineffective assistance under Strickland/Hill, found insufficient indicia of incompetence, and affirmed the convictions and sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by failing to sua sponte order a competency evaluation before accepting guilty pleas	The court did not abuse its discretion; record lacked sufficient indicia of incompetence	Purdy argued his disclosed traumatic brain injury required a sua sponte competency hearing	No abuse of discretion; insufficient indicia of incompetence and trial colloquy showed competence
Whether defense counsel was ineffective for failing to request a competency evaluation or expert evaluation	Counsel was not deficient because no competency hearing was required; no prejudice shown	Purdy argued counsel unreasonably failed to seek evaluation and that this prejudiced his right to a valid plea	Ineffective-assistance claim rejected because counsel’s performance was not deficient given lack of indicia and no prejudice proved

State v. Smith, 89 Ohio St.3d 323 (trial court competence determinations entitled to deference)
Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (same competency standard for pleading guilty and standing trial)
Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (competency requires ability to consult with counsel and rational/factual understanding)
State v. Jordan, 101 Ohio St.3d 216 (defendant presumed competent; burden to prove incompetence)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance-of-counsel standard)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (prejudice inquiry for guilty-plea ineffective-assistance claims)
State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (Ohio standard on reasonable probability affecting plea decisions)
State v. Berry, 72 Ohio St.3d 354 (mental illness or medication use alone does not equal legal incompetence)
State v. Ketterer, 111 Ohio St.3d 70 (same principle regarding mental illness and incompetence)
State v. Bock, 28 Ohio St.3d 108 (same principle regarding mental illness and incompetence)