State v. Smith, 2020 Ohio 3454

Brandon M. Smith was indicted on multiple counts (including murder, robbery, felonious assault, drug and weapons charges); he later pleaded guilty to amended counts of involuntary manslaughter and kidnapping plus a three-year firearm specification under a plea agreement.
Early competency concerns prompted an outpatient evaluation (Dr. Lamoureux) that could not be completed and an inpatient competency evaluation at Northcoast (Dr. Jera A. Barrett), which concluded Smith was competent to stand trial.
At a competency hearing the parties stipulated on the record to the Northcoast report; the court placed the report on the record and journalized the parties’ stipulation but did not specifically use the word “find” that Smith was competent.
Smith entered a negotiated guilty plea on November 28, 2018, with an agreed sentencing range of 9–25 years and an acknowledgment that he could not appeal or seek judicial release from a sentence within that range.
At sentencing the court imposed consecutive terms (11 years for manslaughter, 3-year firearm spec to be served prior to and consecutive to the underlying offense, and 10 years for kidnapping) for an aggregate of 24 years.
Smith appealed, raising (1) that the court erred by accepting his plea without making a formal competency finding, and (2) that consecutive sentences were not supported by the record.

Issue	State's Argument	Smith's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by accepting Smith’s guilty plea without making an explicit on-the-record finding of competency	The parties stipulated on the record to the Northcoast competency report; where competency is stipulated and the report is placed on the record, no separate written finding is required and the court could rely on the stipulation and report.	The court never made a formal competence finding as required by R.C. 2945.38; without an explicit adjudication of competency the plea could not be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary (cites Whitling).	Overruled. Stipulation to the competency report and placement of that report on the record adequately adjudicated competency; explicit language in the journal entry finding competency was not required.
Whether consecutive sentences are unsupported and reviewable	The sentence was within the jointly recommended 9–25 year range; R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) bars appellate review of sentences that are authorized by law and jointly recommended, and a court may impose nonmandatory consecutive terms within an agreed range.	Smith did not agree to consecutive sentences and the record does not support the required findings for consecutive terms.	Overruled. The aggregate 24-year sentence fell within the agreed 9–25 year range and was authorized by law; jointly recommended sentences within that range are not reviewable on appeal, so consecutive terms were permitted.

State v. Bolin, 128 Ohio App.3d 58 (8th Dist. 1998) (an incompetent defendant cannot enter a negotiated plea)
State v. Were, 94 Ohio St.3d 173 (Ohio 2002) (trial court must hold a competency hearing when competency is raised)
State v. Roberts, 137 Ohio St.3d 230 (Ohio 2013) (competency to stand trial is presumed; defendant bears burden to prove incompetence)
State v. Porterfield, 106 Ohio St.3d 5 (Ohio 2005) (jointly recommended sentence is protected from appellate review)
State v. Sergent, 148 Ohio St.3d 94 (Ohio 2016) (statutory framework barring review of jointly recommended sentences)
State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365 (Ohio 2010) (a sentence is "authorized by law" if it comports with mandatory sentencing provisions)