State v. HarrisState v. Harris
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: March 24, 2022
Appearances:
Michael C. O‘Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Allison Cupach, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Buckeye Law Office and P. Andrew Baker, for appellant.
CORNELIUS J. O‘SULLIVAN, JR., J.:
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Shayla Harris (“Harris“), appeals from her conviction and sentence on a multiple-count indictment following a plea agreement. Harris asserts as error the court‘s finding of her competency to enter into the
{¶ 2} In 2020, Harris was charged in a 14-count indictment stemming from three separate hit-and-run incidents that occurred in April 2020. On April 1, 2020, Harris struck a man walking his dog in Bay Village with her car; she also hit the dog. The man suffered permanent injuries. On April 4, 2020, Harris struck a woman walking to get her mail in Westlake; the woman suffered long-term injuries. On April 7, 2020, Harris used her car to strike two women and their dog in Bay Village, causing permanent injuries to one woman and long-term injuries to the other. The dogs involved in the incidents survived.
{¶ 3} Harris was charged with four counts of attempted murder, eight counts of felonious assault, and two counts of injuring animals. The court ordered Harris to undergo a clinical evaluation to determine her competency to stand trial. Her case was also transferred to the mental health docket.
{¶ 4} On April 28, 2021, the parties stipulated to Harris‘s competency report and agreed that she was competent to stand trial. At the same hearing, Harris pleaded guilty to two counts of felonious assault in violation of
{¶ 5} On June 8, 2021, the trial court sentenced Harris to nine to 13 and one-half years in prison pursuant to provisions of the Reagan Tokes Law. Harris filed a notice of appeal and assigned the following two assignments of error for our review:
- The trial court erred when it convicted defendant-appellant without sufficiently establishing that she was competent to stand trial.
- The trial court erred in relying on the Reagan Tokes Law.
{¶ 6} In the first assignment of error, Harris contends that her guilty plea should be vacated because the trial court did not make a finding that she was competent before accepting her plea.
{¶ 7} In Ohio, competency to stand trial is presumed and the defendant bears the burden of proving incompetency by a preponderance of the evidence. State v. Roberts, 137 Ohio St.3d 230, 2013-Ohio-4580, 998 N.E.2d 1100, ¶ 89, citing
{¶ 8} Either party may submit evidence on the issue of the defendant‘s competency, and a “written report of the evaluation of the defendant may be
{¶ 9} In other words, when a defendant stipulates to competency, as happened in the case at bar, “a trial court need not hold a hearing pursuant to
{¶ 11} Unlike Whitling, the trial court herein accepted a stipulation made between the parties that Harris is competent and then journalized its finding. Whitling is clearly distinguishable for these reasons. Notably, this court recently distinguished the holding of Whitling in Smith, 2020-Ohio-3454. In Smith, the trial court referred the defendant to the court psychiatric clinic for a competency evaluation. The defendant was evaluated, found competent to stand trial, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced. On appeal, the defendant claimed that his guilty plea should be vacated because the trial court did not make a finding that he was competent before accepting his plea and did not journalize a finding that he was competent. As in this case, the defendant relied on Whitling.
{¶ 12} This court found Whitling inapposite, reasoning
[w]here an individual is presumed competent, the record demonstrates that the parties stipulated to the defendant‘s competency, and the court noted the parties’ stipulation in its journal entry, the defendant‘s competency is no longer an issue that would preclude the trial court from making a reliable determination of the defendant‘s ability to enter a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary plea.
Smith 2020-Ohio-3454 at ¶ 18.
{¶ 14} In the case at bar, Harris was referred to the court psychiatric clinic on September 2, 2020. On the day of her plea hearing, the trial court stated:
Court: On a prior date, [the trial court] had referred Miss Harris to the court clinic for a competency evaluation. I‘m in receipt of that document. I wanted to make sure we are all on the same page and it does opine with a reasonable medical certainty that she presents with signs and symptoms of the aforementioned diagnosis. It also indicates that she would have the capacity to understand the nature and objective of the proceedings against her. Does the state stipulate to the findings of that report?
State: We do stipulate.
Court: Counsel?
Defense counsel: We do stipulate.
{¶ 15} The court‘s journal entry stated, “Defense counsel and state stipulate to competency evaluation completed by Jacqueline Heath Ph.D. and dated 10/6/2020.”
{¶ 17} Accordingly, the first assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 18} Harris was sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of nine to 13 and one-half years in prison pursuant to the Regan Tokes Law. Defense counsel objected to the imposition of sentence under this law, properly preserving the issue for appeal. In the second assignment of error, Harris argues that the trial court erred in sentencing her under the Regan Tokes Law because it is unconstitutional and raises due process and separation-of-powers arguments.
{¶ 19} Harris‘s arguments are overruled pursuant to this court‘s en banc decision in State v. Delvallie, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109315, 2022-Ohio-470, which overruled the challenges presented in this appeal to the Regan Tokes Law.
{¶ 20} The second assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 21} Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant‘s conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending is terminated. Case remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence.
CORNELIUS J. O‘SULLIVAN, JR., JUDGE
FRANK DANIEL CELEBREZZE, III, P.J., and MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., CONCUR
N.B. Judge Mary Eileen Kilbane joined the dissenting opinion by Judge Lisa B. Forbes and the concurring in part and dissenting in part opinion by Judge Anita Laster Mays in Delvallie and would have found the Reagan Tokes Law unconstitutional.