State v. Rivas
2014 Ohio 833
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- On Jan. 12, 2013, Michael Rivas assaulted a guest with a beer bottle and later confronted the guest in his driveway armed with a kitchen knife; the victim suffered serious facial, hand, and leg injuries.
- Rivas was tried by bench trial after waiving a jury; the trial court found him guilty of two counts of felonious assault (with notice of prior conviction and repeat violent-offender specifications) and one count of misdemeanor assault.
- The trial court proceeded directly to sentencing and imposed a 4-year prison term. Defense counsel and Rivas were permitted to speak at sentencing; counsel informed the court Rivas was in mental health treatment for bipolar disorder that began after the incident.
- Rivas appealed, raising two assignments of error: (1) the trial court erred by not ordering a presentence investigation (PSI) in light of psychiatric history; and (2) trial counsel was ineffective for not seeking referral to the court’s mental health docket.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding no PSI was required before imprisonment and counsel was not ineffective because Rivas did not meet the local rule’s requirements for the mental-health docket based on the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Rivas) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by not ordering a presentence investigation before sentencing to prison | A PSI is not required when the court imposes a prison term and does not impose community control | Court should have ordered a PSI because of Rivas’s psychiatric history for the court to consider at sentencing | No error — Crim.R. 32.2 requires a PSI for community control, not for imposing a prison term; court allowed allocution and considered mental-health treatment |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to seek referral to the court’s mental-health docket | Counsel’s performance was reasonable; referral only appropriate where defendant meets docket criteria | Counsel was deficient for not requesting mental-health docket referral given Rivas’s bipolar diagnosis | No ineffective assistance — local Rule 30.1 requires a recent clinical diagnosis with psychotic features; record did not show such diagnosis, so counsel was not deficient and defendant would not have qualified |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes two-part ineffective-assistance standard)
- Trimble v. Ohio, 911 N.E.2d 242 (Ohio 2009) (applies Strickland in Ohio context)
- State v. Cyrus, 586 N.E.2d 94 (Ohio 1992) (PSI requirement tied to community control/probation)
- State v. Calhoun, 714 N.E.2d 905 (Ohio 1999) (presumption of counsel competency)
- State v. Perez, 920 N.E.2d 104 (Ohio 2009) (defendant bears burden to prove ineffective assistance)