State v. LampleyState v. Lampley
Christopher P. Frederick, 304 North Second Street, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for defendant-appellant
O P I N I O N
RINGLAND, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Donald Lampley, appeals his conviction and sentence in the Hamilton Municipal Court for sexual imposition.
{¶2} In December 2010, appellаnt was charged with sexual imposition in violation of
{¶3} Appellant appeals, raising the following two assignments of еrror:
{¶4} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶5} “APPELLANT WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE DUE TO TRIAL COUNSEL‘S FAILURE TO QUESTION APPELLANT‘S COMPETENCY TO STAND TRIAL AND REQUEST A COMPETENCY EVALUATION.”
{¶6} Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶7} “THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY NOT SUA SPONTE RAISING THE ISSUE OF THE DEFENDANT‘S COMPETENCE TO STAND TRIAL.”
{¶8} At the heart of both assignments of error is appellant‘s claim that he was not competent to stand trial as evidenced by the fact he referred to himself at trial as the Holy Ghost and told the poliсe he was the Holy Spirit.
{¶9} Fundamental principles of due process require that a criminal defendant who is legally incompetent may not be tried. State v. Berry, 72 Ohio St.3d 354, 359, 1995-Ohio-310. A defendant is incompetent if “because of [his] present mental condition, [he] is incapable of understanding the nature and objective of the proceedings against [him] or of assisting in [his] defense.”
{¶10} A defendant is presumed to be competent.
{¶11}
{¶12} “A trial court is not required to sua sponte order a hearing on a defendant‘s competence, and the right to such a hearing when actually requested by the defendant only ‘rises to the level of a constitutional guarantee where the record contains sufficient indicia of incompetence.’ Thus, absent a party‘s timely request to inquire into a defendant‘s competency, the trial court‘s deсision to hold a competency hearing is discretionary.” (Internal citation omitted.) State v. Walker, Mahoning App. No. 08 MA 103, 2009-Ohio-1503, ¶21. Further, “absent a request by counsel, or any indicia of incompetence, a competency evaluation is not required.” State v. Cowans, 87 Ohio St.3d 68, 81, 1999-Ohio-250, certiorari denied (2000), 529 U.S. 1102, 120 S.Ct. 1839.
{¶13} In the case at bar, the issue of appellant‘s competence to stand trial was raised for the first time during the hearing on the objections. The record shоws that appellant
{¶14} During the hearing on the objections, appellant‘s trial counsel indicated that before the triаl, appellant told the police he was the Holy Spirit. Appellant‘s counsel did not explain in what context the statement was made. Appellant‘s counsel also stated that “in talking to [appеllant] I believed he was lucid. I believe that we had * * * conversations that led me to believe that he was competent to stand trial. * * * But it appears from my way of opinion that agitation and stress brings that on with him.”
{¶15} In overruling the objections, the trial court stated that appellant had appeared before the court on previous occasions for the sexual incident and that there was no indication thеn that he was not competent to stand trial. The trial court also indicated it had listened to the audio recording of the trial. With regard to the Holy Ghost comment, the trial court found that “it wasn‘t * * * something unrelated to that or something that was bizarre in a different way, it was directly about the * * * defense that was presented.”
{¶16} Further, “from what I heard there was nothing to indicate that the defendant wasn‘t capable of assisting you, or that he didn‘t understand the nature of the charges. In fact, I find that he was very capable of assisting you because of the manner in which the co-defense (sic) was presented and that includes the defendan[t‘s] testimоny about that. And in addition to that * * * I think he understood the nature of the charges. [N]othing about his
{¶17} Upon a thorough review of the record, we find that the triаl court did not err in failing to sua sponte raise the issue of appellant‘s competence to stand trial. Given the definition of incompetency under
{¶18} In addition, it is clear from the record that appellant understood the nature and objective of the proceedings, and that he was capable of assisting in his defense. In fact, appellant testified in his own defense at trial and was able to convey the defense theory of the case. The trial court had the benefit of observing and personally addressing appellant on previous occasions before the trial, and also had the benefit of listening to appellant‘s testimony at trial via the audio recording of the trial. At no time did appellant‘s behavior raise any question аs to his competence. Further, neither the magistrate nor the trial court, or trial counsel or the prosecutor, ever expressed concerns on the record as to appellant‘s competence. “An appellate court when reviewing the record for indicia of incompetence should give deference to the trial court and those who saw and heard the procеedings in the courtroom.” State v. Plato, Champaign App. No. 2003 CA 26, 2004-Ohio-5782, ¶37.
{¶19} Appellant also asserts he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to question his competency to stand trial and failed to request a competency evaluation.
{¶20} In order to establish ineffective assistance of counsel, appellant must show that
{¶21} Hindsight is not permitted to distort the assessment of what was reasonable in light of counsel‘s perspective at the time. State v. Rodriguez, Butler App. No. CA2008-07-162, 2009-Ohio-4460, ¶68. Judiсial scrutiny of an ineffective assistance claim must be highly deferential. State v. Roy, Butler App. No. CA2009-12-305, 2010-Ohio-5528, ¶9.
{¶22} There is no indication in the record that appellant‘s trial counsel had any difficulty communicating with aрpellant or vice versa. Appellant‘s trial counsel told the trial court that based upon his conversations with appellant, he believed appellant was lucid and competent to stand trial. As noted above, appellant clearly understood the nature and objective of the proceedings and was capable of assisting in his defense. Appellant did not display any indicia of incоmpetency to warrant a competency hearing or evaluation and there is nothing in the record to indicate he suffered from any form of severe mental disease or defect. Appellant‘s trial counsel‘s failure to question his competency to stand trial and to request a competency evaluation did not constitute deficient performance. See Rodriguez, 2009-Ohio-4460. We therefore find that appellant did not receive ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
{¶24} Judgment affirmed.
HENDRICKSON, P.J., and PIPER, J., concur.