State v. KnoxState v. Knox
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF LORAIN )
STATE OF OHIO
Appellee
v.
LARRY KNOX
Appellant
C.A. No. 17CA011233
APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN THE
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF LORAIN, OHIO
CASE No. 15CR092937
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: June 10, 2019
CARR, Judge.
{¶1} Appellant, Larry Knox, appeals the judgment of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas. This Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} In 1999, Knox was convicted of sexual imposition and gross sexual imposition in the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas. At that time, he was classified as a sexual predator. Though Knox was reclassified under the Adam Walsh Act, the trial court ultimately reinstated Knox’s classification as a sexual predator under Megan’s Law pursuant to State v. Bodyke, 126 Ohio St.3d 266, 2010-Ohio-2424. Knox was subsequently charged with failure to verify his address in Cuyahoga County. On October 1, 2015, the trial court granted a motion to dismiss on the basis that Knox had not been properly notified of his duties to register at the time his sexual predator classification was reinstated. The trial court notified Knox of his duties to register at that time.
{¶4} On appeal, Knox raises two assignments of error.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
THE FAILURE OF THE TRIAL COURT TO RAISE “SUA SPONTE” THE ISSUE OF THE DEFENDANT’S COMPETENCY WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION. THIS FAILURE LED TO A VIOLATION OF KNOX’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS.
{¶5} In his first assignment of error, Knox contends that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to sua sponte raise the issue of his competency to stand trial. This Court disagrees.
{¶6} When an appellant argues that the trial court should have sua sponte raised the issue of competency based, at least in part, on events that transpired during trial, the trial court’s decision as to whether to hold a competency hearing is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. State v. Rahman, 23 Ohio St.3d 146, 156 (1986). An abuse of discretion indicates that the trial court’s attitude was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983).
{¶7}
{¶8} In a criminal action in a court of common pleas, * * * the court, the prosecutor, or defense may raise the issue of the defendant’s competence to stand trial. If the issue is raised before the trial has commenced, the court shall hold a hearing on the issue as provided in this section. If the issue is raised after the trial has commenced, the court shall hold a hearing on the issue only for good cause shown or on the court’s own motion.
{¶10} Knox points to numerous parts of the record in support of his position that the trial court should have sua sponte raised the issue of his competency. For example, at arraignment, Knox refused to enter a plea and stated that he was appearing before the court “under protest and duress[.]” He renewed his protest to the proceedings at various stages of this matter. Furthermore, after electing to represent himself before the trial court, Knox filed a number of motions that were misguided and seemingly unrelated to this case. The trial court found one of his filings to be “[un]intelligible and rambling.” The State took the initiative to request that the trial court appoint advisory counsel for Knox. Knox was homeless for a period of time and he repeatedly displayed a lack of trust in the judicial system. Finally, Knox appeared to conflate this matter with other cases where he was a defendant in Cuyahoga County.
{¶11} A thorough review of the record reveals that Knox’s argument is without merit. While Knox’s objections to the proceedings were, at times, bizarre, it is well settled that while “unusual beliefs * * * may go so far as to obstruct trial court proceedings, they are not indicia of
{¶12} The first assignment of error is overruled.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
THE EVIDENCE IN THIS MATTER WAS INSUFFICIENT TO CONVICT THE APPELLANT OF FAILURE TO REGISTER UNDER [
{¶13} In his second assignment of error, Knox argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to convict him of violating
{¶14} When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court must review the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether the evidence before the trial court was sufficient to sustain a conviction. State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 279 (1991).
Id. at paragraph two of the syllabus.
{¶15} Knox was convicted of failing to register in violation of
{¶16} The State presented evidence at trial that supported the following narrative. As of September 30, 2015, Knox was registered at a homeless shelter in Cuyahoga County located at 2100 Lakeside, Ave., Cleveland, Ohio. In October 2015, Detective Kathleen Olesiak of the Cuyahoga County Sheriff’s Office received a tip that Knox might be residing in Lorain County. Detective Olesiak was familiar with Knox because she had recently been involved in a criminal prosecution against him in Cuyahoga County. Knox was released from the Cuyahoga County jail on October 1, 2015 after the charges against him were dismissed. Thereafter, Detective
{¶17} J.L. resided at the house located at 701 Dewitt St. where he helped care for an elderly man. J.L. had lived in the house for more than two years when Knox turned up at the residence. J.L. testified that Knox started living at 701 Dewitt St. in October 2015. Knox continued to live at the residence until J.L. moved out in December 2015. At trial, J.L. explained that Knox “gradually” moved into the house. When pressed on what he meant by “gradually,” J.L. explained that at first Knox would stay some nights but would often arrive “early in the morning” and then “stay there and take off again at night.” J.L. noted that Knox had a key to the house and that he would sleep there. J.L. further explained that he “would see [Knox] every day” and that Knox was at the house for “months.” J.L.’s girlfriend, D.B. also testified that Knox was living at 701 Dewitt St. in October 2015.
{¶18} The Lorain County Sherriff’s Office opened an investigation into whether Knox was living in Lorain County on October 15, 2015. Deputy Deborah Hurlburt met with J.L and D.B. on October 21, 2015. At that meeting, D.B. informed Deputy Hurlburt that Knox had been living at 701 Dewitt St. since approximately October 8, 2015. A number of law enforcement officials went to 701 Dewitt St. in an attempt to make contact with Mr. Knox. J.L. permitted the officers to enter the house. The officers entered the attic and discovered a sleeping bag, a pillow, and paperwork that belonged to Knox.
{¶19} In light of the aforementioned evidence, Knox’s sufficiency challenge is without merit. While Knox attempts to highlight disparities in the witnesses testimony, we are mindful
{¶20} Knox’s second assignment of error is overruled.
III.
{¶21} Knox’s assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common Pleas, County of Lorain, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
DONNA J. CARR
FOR THE COURT
TEODOSIO, P. J.
CALLAHAN, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
JOHN D. TOTH, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
DENNIS P. WILL, Prosecuting Attorney, and BRIAN P. MURPHY, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.