State v. Blair , 2012 Ohio 1112 ( 2012 )

[Cite as State v. Blair, 2012-Ohio-1112.]
COURT OF APPEALS
DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES:
: Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
: Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J.
-vs- :
:
SCOTT A. BLAIR : Case No. 11CAA070069
:
Defendant-Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common
Pleas, Case No. 11CRI030150
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT March 12, 2012
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
ERIC C. PENKAL JEFFREY P. UHRICH
140 North Sandusky Street P.O. Box 1977
3rd Floor Westerville, OH 43086
Delaware, OH 43015
Delaware County, Case No. 11CAA070069 2
Farmer, J.
{¶1} On March 18, 2011, the Delaware County Grand Jury indicted appellant,
Scott Blair, on two counts of sexual battery in violation of R.C. 2907.03.
{¶2} On May 18, 2011, appellant filed a suggestion of incompetency. A
competency evaluation was conducted and a hearing was held on June 29, 2011. By
judgment entry filed June 30, 2011, the trial court found appellant to be incompetent and
restorable, and ordered him to be committed to the Twin Valley Behavioral Center for
restoration.
{¶3} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for
consideration. Assignment of error is as follows:
I
{¶4} "THE TRIAL [COURT] ERRED WHEN IT CONCLUDED THAT,
PURSUANT TO R.C. 2945.38(F), THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE
CONTAINED IN THE FORENSIC EXAMINER'S REPORT TO SUPPORT A FINDING
THAT THERE WAS A 'SUBSTANTIAL PROBABILITY' THAT
DEFENDANT/APPELLANT WILL BECOME COMPETENT WITH A COURSE OF
TREATMENT."
I
{¶5} Appellant claims the trial court erred in determining there was sufficient
evidence to find a substantial probability that he would become competent within one
year with a course of treatment. We disagree.
{¶6} R.C. 2945.38(B)(1)(a) states the following:
Delaware County, Case No. 11CAA070069 3
{¶7} "If, after taking into consideration all relevant reports, information, and
other evidence, the court finds that the defendant is incompetent to stand trial and that
there is a substantial probability that the defendant will become competent to stand trial
within one year if the defendant is provided with a course of treatment, the court shall
order the defendant to undergo treatment. If the defendant has been charged with a
felony offense and if, after taking into consideration all relevant reports, information, and
other evidence, the court finds that the defendant is incompetent to stand trial, but the
court is unable at that time to determine whether there is a substantial probability that
the defendant will become competent to stand trial within one year if the defendant is
provided with a course of treatment, the court shall order continuing evaluation and
treatment of the defendant for a period not to exceed four months to determine whether
there is a substantial probability that the defendant will become competent to stand trial
within one year if the defendant is provided with a course of treatment."
{¶8} Appellant argues the report of Jane Speicher-Bocija, Ph.D did not include
in its forensic conclusion a finding that there was a "substantial probability" that he will
become competent to stand trial within one year if he is provided with a course of
treatment. Appellant argues Dr. Speicher-Bocija's conclusion that it is "likely good" that
he could be restored to competency within the time frame required by law is not legally
sufficient to justify the trial court's decision.
{¶9} Throughout her report, Dr. Speicher-Bocija makes references to
appellant's ability to historically relate facts correctly, his ability to respond appropriately
to interview questions, and his logical and linear thinking. (Sealed Exhibit 1).
Delaware County, Case No. 11CAA070069 4
{¶10} As the cited statute indicates, it is the trial court's decision as to restoration
to competency given "any relevant reports, information, and other evidence." The trial
court acknowledged Dr. Speicher-Bocija's failure to use the "magic words" of
"substantial probability," but found the report sufficiently related to "substantial
probability:
{¶11} "All right. Based on that report, the Court would find Mr. Blair is not
presently seriously mentally ill, that he does not understand the nature and the objective
of the proceedings against him, at present he cannot assist in his own defense.
{¶12} "However, although the report says a likelihood of restoring to
competency, the statute says substantial probability - - great likelihood with a
substantial probability that he could become competent to stand trial within one year if
he was provided with a course of treatment. Therefore, the Court orders Mr. Blair to
undergo treatment to restore his competency for a period of six months in that the most
serious offense here is a sexual battery, felony of the third degree."
{¶13} Upon review, we find this reasoning is supported from the references in
the report to appellant's cognitive skills. The trial court did not err in its decision.
{¶14} The sole assignment of error is denied.
Delaware County, Case No. 11CAA070069 5
{¶15} The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Ohio is
hereby affirmed.
By Farmer, J.
Delaney, P.J. and
Hoffman, J. concur.
s/ Sheila G. Farmer_____________
s/ Patricia A. Delaney____________
_s/ William B. Hoffman_________
JUDGES
SGF/sg 228
[Cite as State v. Blair, 2012-Ohio-1112.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO :
:
Plaintiff-Appellee :
:
-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY
:
SCOTT A. BLAIR :
:
Defendant-Appellant : CASE NO. 11CAA070069
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the
judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Ohio is affirmed. Costs to
appellant.
s/ Sheila G. Farmer_____________
s/ Patricia A. Delaney____________
_s/ William B. Hoffman_________
JUDGES