State v. Whitling, 110 N.E.3d 63

Whitling was charged in municipal court with violating a protection order (one of three related charges) and entered a guilty plea in exchange for dismissal of the other two counts.
At arraignment defense counsel sought release on personal recognizance, citing serious medical problems and a history of brain injury; the court set $25,000 bond and Whitling remained jailed until later release.
The court ordered a competency evaluation and a competency hearing; a psychologist evaluated Whitling and provided a written report to the court and defense counsel.
At the September 7, 2016 proceeding the court discussed the evaluator’s report, orally stated Whitling was "competent to stand trial," but did not admit the report into evidence or journalize a formal competency finding.
Whitling later pled guilty and was sentenced; on appeal he argued his plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because competency had not been determined in accordance with R.C. 2945.37–.38.
The Twelfth District reversed and vacated the plea and sentence, remanding with instructions that the trial court determine competency in accordance with R.C. 2945.38(A). Judge Piper dissented.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly accepted Whitling’s guilty plea when competency had been raised but no journalized competency finding was entered	The State argued competency was addressed: an evaluation was done, counsel saw the report, a competency hearing opportunity occurred, and the court orally found him competent	Whitling argued the statutory procedures were not satisfied because the evaluation was not admitted as evidence at a hearing and the court failed to journalize a competency finding before accepting the plea, so the plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered	Court reversed: although evaluation and a hearing opportunity existed, the court erred in accepting the plea without making a journalized competency determination per R.C. 2945.38(A)
Whether appellate court should address claimed sentencing errors (court costs and jail-time credit)	State would defend sentencing as lawful	Whitling raised errors in the sentencing entry (costs imposed without being spoken at hearing; failure to award jail-time credit)	Not reached: appellate court declined to address sentencing issues because plea/sentence were vacated after resolving the competency issue

State v. Berry, 72 Ohio St.3d 354 (Ohio 1995) (defendant legally incompetent may not be tried)
State v. Mincy, 2 Ohio St.3d 6 (Ohio 1982) (court speaks only through its journal entries)
Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348 (U.S. 1996) (limits on presumption of competence; presumption cannot substitute for evidence where indicia of incompetence exist)
Medina v. California, 505 U.S. 437 (U.S. 1992) (standards for procedural rules affecting competency determinations)
State v. Bock, 28 Ohio St.3d 108 (Ohio 1986) (harmless-error analysis when a competency hearing is not held)
Eley v. Bagley, 604 F.3d 958 (6th Cir. 2010) (past brain injury alone insufficient indicia of present incompetency)
State v. Hicks, 43 Ohio St.3d 72 (Ohio 1989) (appellate review of competency findings asks whether competent, credible evidence supports the finding)