{¶ 3} The bank teller testified for the state that May had handed her a handwritten note threatening to shoot her if she did not turn over $100,000 in small bills. May did not show the teller a weapon, but she testified that she was very frightened. The police did not find a weapon either on May or anywhere in the approximately 200 yards betwеen where he was detained and the bank. May did not testify or present any witnesses at trial.
{¶ 4} The trial court found Mаy guilty of the robbery, but not guilty of the aggravated robbery with specifications. May's counsel waived a presеntence report, and *3 the court accepted the waiver. May's counsel offered as mitigation that May had (1) been a resident of a halfway house; (2) told a mental-health counselor that he was depressed and was considering robbing a bank; (3) been diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic; and (4) qualified for social-security disability payments because of serious mental-health issues. Additionally, counsel told the court that the police and the FBI were aware that May was considering robbing a bank but had done nothing about it.
{¶ 5} May now asserts on appeal that his trial counsel was ineffective and that the court should have sua sponte ordered a competency evaluation for him. Neither assertion has merit; thus we affirm thе trial court's judgment.
{¶ 7} Not guilty by reason of insanity is defined by R.C.
{¶ 8} May understоod that it was wrong to rob a bank. He would not have admitted to his mental-health counselor that he was deрressed and was thinking *4 about robbing a bank if he did not know that robbery was wrong. His diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia was not enough to show he that did not understand that his actions were wrong.
{¶ 9} May also argues that his lawyer should not hаve stipulated to the robbery. May relies on State v. Burgins5 for the proposition that, in every criminal case that gоes to trial, all attorneys must at least try to argue for a complete victory. Not so. In Burgins, the defendant maintained his innocence throughout trial. His lawyer during closing argument told the jury that he did not necessarily believe his client's story and that his client very well might have committed the crime that he had been accused of. That case is a far cry from this, where there is nothing in the record to suggest that May had planned to maintain his innocence.
{¶ 10} But even if May's attorney had erred by making the stipulations, there was overwhelming evidence of May's guilt. The money he had stolen had a locator device, and that money was found on May when he was apprеhended shortly after the robbery. The teller positively identified May as the robber. May told the police that he had robbed the bank. The outcome would not have changed had May's attorney not made the stipulations, and thus there was no prejudice.
{¶ 12} May would have been incompetent to stand trial if, after a hearing, the court had found that May wаs "incapable of understanding the nature and objective of the proceedings against [him] or of assisting in [his] defense."6 A *5 defendant is presumed to be competent.7 Nothing in the statutes or the rules suggests that a trial court is required to hold a hearing to evaluate competency or to obtain a presentence investigation.8
{¶ 13} The record reflects that May understood the proceedings against him. He spoke articulately, answered questions appropriately, and asked his own questions. The trial court was not required to order a competency evaluation.
{¶ 14} For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Judgment affirmed.
SUNDERMANN, P.J., and DINKELACKER, J., concur.