State v. Russell

[Cite as State v. Russell, 2025-Ohio-4654.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT NOBLE COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

ANTONIO M. RUSSELL,

Defendant-Appellant.

OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY Case No. 25 NO 0523

Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Noble County, Ohio Case No. 223-2039

BEFORE: Cheryl L. Waite, Carol Ann Robb, Mark A. Hanni, Judges.

JUDGMENT: Affirmed.

Atty. Jordan C. Croucher, Noble County Prosecutor, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Atty. Edward A. Czopur, for Defendant-Appellant

Dated: October 7, 2025 –2–

WAITE, J.

{¶1} Appellant Antonio M. Russell challenges the trial court’s acceptance of his

guilty plea after his defense counsel raised the issue of competency and despite the

concerns all parties held regarding his competency. However, Appellant’s counsel

withdrew his motion for a competency evaluation after the parties learned that a Franklin

County court had found Appellant competent in an unrelated case using the same

evaluator that the instant court used, and during the same general time period. As such,

Appellant’s arguments are without merit and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Facts and Procedural History

{¶2} On November 6, 2021, while Appellant was incarcerated on unrelated

charges at the Noble Correctional Institution, he had a scheduled visit with a female

named ShaDae Butler (“Butler”). During this visit, prison staff noticed as Butler prepared

Appellant a sandwich on a plate that she appeared to possess certain suspicious items.

Following inspection, prison staff discovered “189 buprenorphine strips and two pieces of

paper containing MDMB-4en-pinaa” had been placed underneath the sandwich. (Plea

Hrg. Tr., p. 13.) After this discovery, investigators reviewed prior jail calls between the

two and discovered there had been conversations between them discussing their plans

to exchange the drugs. Investigators interviewed Butler and asked her if she wanted to

make a statement. She declined, saying that “you guys have it, you know I did it so no,

not really.” (Plea Hrg. Tr., pp. 13-14.)

{¶3} As a result of this incident, on March 8, 2023, Appellant was charged with

a single count of complicity to illegal conveyance of drugs onto the grounds of a

government facility, a felony of the third degree in violation of R.C. 2923.03(A)(2), (F) and

R.C. 2921.36 in a secret indictment. The court and counsel for both sides had difficulty

Case No. 25 NO 0523 –3–

scheduling the arraignment in this matter, as Appellant apparently refused to leave his

cell and attend the proceedings.

{¶4} It is unclear what caused a significant gap in the proceedings, however,

nothing occurred in the case from March 8, 2023 until February 2, 2024. On that date,

Appellant was finally arraigned. Appellant appeared at the hearing and informed the court

that his name was Osama Bin Laden, not Antonio Russell. He offered to undergo DNA

testing to prove his “true” identity. During this hearing, defense counsel orally moved for

a competency hearing.

{¶5} On April 9, 2024, the court held a pretrial hearing which Appellant failed to

attend. At this hearing, the court was informed that Appellant refused to exit his cell and

had refused to participate in any competency evaluation.

{¶6} On November 12, 2024, the court held another pretrial hearing. Again,

Appellant refused to leave his cell. He informed prison staff that if they forced his

attendance, he would expose his genitals at the hearing. During this hearing, defense

counsel informed the court that counsel had learned Appellant did undergo a recent

competency evaluation for purposes of the Franklin County matter for which he had

originally been incarcerated. Appellant was found competent, but his counsel in that case

disagreed with the finding and requested a second evaluation. While the record does not

contain evidence as to a second evaluation, during the time the instant case was pending

Appellant proceeded to trial and was convicted of serious charges in the Franklin County

matter. Also, although the record includes no information relating to the offenses or

potential competency issues, Appellant was charged and sentenced in a Richland County

matter during this general time period.

Case No. 25 NO 0523 –4–

{¶7} Based on this information, Appellant’s trial counsel in the instant case

opined that no additional evaluations needed to occur in relation to this case.

Rationalizing that a court in Franklin County found him competent in a matter where

Appellant faced “severe charges” following competency evaluations, counsel saw no

reason an evaluation might come to a different conclusion, here, particularly as the

general timeline was the same in both cases.

{¶8} On January 3, 2025, the court converted a scheduled pretrial hearing into a

plea hearing after the parties informed the court that an agreement had been reached.

First, however, the court questioned the parties regarding the status of Appellant’s

competency. Appellant’s trial counsel informed the court that Appellant never participated

with the requested evaluation in this case, but counsel was satisfied with the evaluation

done in the Franklin County case. Counsel stipulated to the finding of competency and

withdrew his motion for a competency evaluation on the record. The court then vigorously

questioned Appellant, and determined that he understood the effect of counsel’s decision.

The court requested a copy of the Franklin County court’s decision finding Appellant

competent, which is contained in this appellate record. The court indicated on the record

that it had a copy of the entry, had read it, and accepted the parties’ stipulation.

{¶9} While the parties agreed to a sentence of twelve months of incarceration,

they disagreed as to whether that sentence should run consecutively or concurrently with

his existing Franklin and Richland County sentences. Appellant requested electronic

appearance at sentencing, complaining that he lost his “dorm” each time he left the prison

and was moved to a new cell on his return. The court accommodated his request. After

hearing arguments from both sides and from Appellant, the court ordered his sentence to

run consecutively to his Richland County case, as the court was under the impression

Case No. 25 NO 0523 –5–

Appellant may have served the entirety of his Franklin County sentence. The sentence

was journalized on February 26, 2025.

{¶10} After the notice of appeal was filed in this matter, delays occurred. First,

Appellant failed to file a timely brief. While he failed to request any extension, a brief that

was filed instanter was accepted by the Court. The state sought and received a fourteen-

day extension in which to file its response brief. Appellant then filed an untimely reply

brief without seeking an extension or requesting to file instanter. This brief was not

accepted by the Court.

General Law

{¶11} This case concerns a motion by defense counsel seeking a competency

evaluation. The law governing competency procedures is found within R.C. 2945.37.

Several subsections of that statute are relevant:

(B) In a criminal action in a court of common pleas, a county court,

or a municipal court, the court, 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.

(C) The court shall conduct the hearing required or authorized under

division (B) of this section within thirty days after the issue is raised, unless

the defendant has been referred for evaluation in which case the court shall

conduct the hearing within ten days after the filing of the report of the

Case No. 25 NO 0523 –6–

evaluation or, in the case of a defendant who is ordered by the court

pursuant to division (I) of section 2945.371 of the Revised Code to undergo

a separate intellectual disability evaluation conducted by a psychologist

designated by the director of developmental disabilities, within ten days

after the filing of the report of the separate intellectual disability evaluation

under that division. A hearing may be continued for good cause.

...

(G) A defendant is presumed to be competent to stand trial. If, after

a hearing, the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that, because

of the defendant's present mental condition, the defendant is incapable of

understanding the nature and objective of the proceedings against the

defendant or of assisting in the defendant's defense, the court shall find the

defendant incompetent to stand trial and shall enter an order authorized by

section 2945.38 of the Revised Code.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

Appellant’s Due Process Rights pursuant to both the United States

Constitution and Ohio Constitution were violated when the trial court

accepted his guilty plea without first determining his competence to stand

trial.

{¶12} Appellant contends the court erred in accepting his guilty plea where

concerns regarding his competence raised lingering questions in this case. Appellant

Case No. 25 NO 0523 –7–

begins by noting that he exhibited behavior raising some concerns as to competency,

leading the court to order a competency evaluation. Appellant argues that where the

record establishes an indicia of incompetence, Ohio law requires a court to hold a hearing

on the matter. While Appellant generally disagrees with the court’s handling of his

competency issue, he focuses his argument on the failure of the court and the parties to

review the medical report associated with the competency proceedings in Franklin

County. He also claims that counsel’s motion for a competency evaluation was never

withdrawn.

{¶13} At oral argument, Appellant shifted his focus to concerns regarding whether

the trial court actually accepted the motion to withdraw the request for a competency

evaluation, as no separate judgment entry was filed on the issue.

{¶14} First, we must clarify certain facts asserted by Appellant. Appellant seems

to be arguing that the court erred when it failed to hold a competency hearing. The issue

of Appellant’s competency was first raised at a pretrial conference where counsel orally

moved for an evaluation of competency. At that hearing, the parties addressed

Appellant’s concerning behavior and the court ordered an evaluation. Thereafter, the

court scheduled two additional hearings, both of which Appellant refused to attend. Thus,

the court attempted to hold a hearing on this issue. Appellant thwarted these attempts,

and was responsible for the failure to hold a full hearing.

{¶15} Appellant inaccurately states that the Franklin County judgment entry

finding him competent in that matter is not in this record. The document is found within

the trial court folder. A review of the plea hearing shows that the document was provided

to the judge by the parties jointly, and the court reviewed the entry on the bench. The

parties agreed they had copies of the entry. In fact, on the basis of this entry, Appellant’s

Case No. 25 NO 0523 –8–

counsel stipulated to his competency in this matter. The court stated that it intended to

review the entry prior to proceeding with any plea hearing, since Appellant’s competency

had been an ongoing issue throughout the case.

THE COURT: Okay.

And then the court also now has before it the Judgment Entry from

that case, that being 23CR1624.

The court will accept the stipulation to competency and prior to

coming on record the court was informed that the defendant would be

changing his plea here today. Is that correct, [Trial counsel]?

(Emphasis added.) (Plea Hrg. Tr., p. 4.)

{¶16} Thus, contrary to Appellant’s assertions here, the court had the Franklin

County judgment entry, reviewed it, and it became part of the record.

{¶17} Appellant also claims that trial counsel did not withdraw the motion for a

competency evaluation. At the plea hearing, Appellant’s counsel and the court entered

the following discussion:

THE COURT: First of all, I believe there was a request for a

competency evaluation, Attorney Lenarz, and I don’t think your client

completed that evaluation.

[TRIAL COUNSEL]: He did not, You Honor, but upon reviewing [the]

Franklin County case there he was found competent so I would stipulate to

Case No. 25 NO 0523 –9–

that entry that he is competent to stand trial, withdraw that motion and the

State and I do have an agreement for a plea on this case.

(Emphasis added.) (Plea Hrg. Tr., p. 2.)

{¶18} Contrary to Appellant’s assertions, trial counsel clearly stipulated to

competency and withdrew his motion for a competency evaluation. While Appellant now

argues that because the trial court did not address the issue in a separate judgment entry

this suggests the court did not actually grant the request to withdraw the motion, there is

no requirement that a separate entry be filed in this instance. It is abundantly clear from

the record that the court allowed counsel to withdraw the motion based on the stipulation

that Appellant had been found competent in Franklin County.

{¶19} With this in mind, we turn to the analysis. “Fundamental principles of due

process prohibit a trial of a criminal defendant who is legally incompetent.” State v. Austin,

2010-Ohio-6583, ¶ 25 (7th Dist.), citing State v. Braden, 2003-Ohio-1325, ¶ 114.

“Incompetency must not be equated with mere mental or emotional instability or even

outright insanity. A defendant may be emotionally disturbed or even psychotic and still

be capable of understanding the charges against him and of assisting his counsel.” State

v. Were, 2008-Ohio-2762, ¶ 47, quoting State v. Bock, 28 Ohio St.3d 108, 110 (1986).

{¶20} Pursuant to R.C. 2945.37(B), where a criminal defendant’s competency to

stand trial is raised prior to a trial, the court is required to hold a hearing on competency.

While there are timing components to the rule, Appellant in this matter refused to appear

for hearing and would not participate in the scheduled competency evaluation.

{¶21} Although not raised by the parties, a case arising from the Ohio Supreme

Court provides guidance. See State v. Mills, 2023-Ohio-4716. In Mills, defense counsel

Case No. 25 NO 0523 – 10 –

sought a competency evaluation of the defendant due to his behavior, which included the

inability to engage in conversations about plea discussions, evidence to be used in the

case against him, and trial tactics. Id. at ¶ 5. The defendant also became verbally

abusive and suggested potential physical violence. The court ordered a competency

evaluation, however, the defendant refused to be transported for the evaluation. No one

rescheduled the evaluation and the issue was not raised again. The matter proceeded

to trial, and the defendant was convicted on all offenses charged. Id. at ¶ 7.

{¶22} On appeal, the Sixth District determined that the court’s failure to hold a

competency hearing did not amount to reversible error. Id. at ¶ 7. The court rationalized

the record showed that the defendant’s behavior was certainly aggressive, but did not

“reveal ‘sufficient indicia of incompetency.’ ” Id.

{¶23} The Ohio Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction and ultimately affirmed the

holding of the Sixth District. As to whether the court’s failure to hold a hearing constituted

reversible error, the Supreme Court agreed with the Sixth District that while the defendant

was “difficult and uncooperative,” there was nothing of record to suggest that he was

incompetent. Id. at ¶ 32. The court noted that the defendant articulated to the trial court

all of the information he had been told by counsel regarding the proceedings. The

defendant understood concepts such as: the presumption of innocence, his right to

appointed counsel, his right to a speedy trial, and the meaning of a Batson challenge.

The defendant expressed frustration with the pace of the proceedings and simply wished

to begin trial. Based on this, the Mills Court held that while he exhibited challenging

behavior, there was no evidence that the defendant was incapable of understanding the

nature and objective of the proceedings or that he was incapable of assisting in his own

defense. Id.

Case No. 25 NO 0523 – 11 –

{¶24} Similar to Mills, the trial court engaged in a colloquy with Appellant when it

accepted his counsel’s stipulation to competency and the request to withdraw the motion

seeking an evaluation. Once the court accepted the request to withdraw the motion, the

court’s further colloquy contained a description of, and sought his understanding of, the

possible penalties he faced, postrelease control, the elements of the offenses he was

charged with committing, that defenses to the charges might be available, and the typical

constitutional and nonconstitutional rights that a court must convey during a Crim.R. 11

colloquy. (Plea Hrg. Tr., pp. 6-12.) The court also inquired about Appellant’s education

level, any physical or mental health issues, and his legal issues pertaining to the Franklin

and Richland County charges. Appellant evinced an understanding of all of these issues,

including in his other legal proceedings in the unrelated cases.

{¶25} During this hearing, Appellant demonstrated acceptable behavior and

appeared cognizant and coherent. He intelligently answered the court’s questions and

demonstrated his understanding of both the process and the information provided by the

court. Appellant concedes, here, that the court engaged in a vigorous colloquy with him,

first addressing the issue of competency and, only when the court felt comfortable with

competence, then in the Crim.R. 11 plea colloquy. The state contends the record contains

a coherent and logical letter apparently written by Appellant which counsel read at the

sentencing hearing. We note that it is unclear when this letter was written, as there was

a slight gap in time between the plea hearing and sentencing hearing.

{¶26} Appellant explained at hearing that his refusal to cooperate in leaving his

cell stemmed from his desire to remain in his “dorm,” which is his term for his jail cell

within the prison. He explained that every time a prisoner leaves for a court appearance

or evaluation, they are moved to a different cell after their return. He requested to appear

Case No. 25 NO 0523 – 12 –

at his sentencing hearing via electronic means because such an appearance would

enable him to remain in his current cell. Thus, Appellant provided a logical reason for his

behavior, even though his actions in furtherance of it may have been inappropriate and

excessive.

{¶27} In addition, the court had the benefit of Appellant’s obvious compliance with

a competency evaluation in his Franklin County case, ongoing at the time of the offense

at issue, here. While defense counsel orally stipulated to Appellant’s competency,

dismissed his request for a competency evaluation, and asked to proceed to the plea

hearing, the court stated its intention to review the Franklin County judgment entry finding

Appellant competent before accepting the stipulation and dismissal. The record reflects

the parties provided the court with a copy of the entry, and the court reviewed that

document. Despite the fact that the underlying evaluation itself was not provided, the

court was satisfied that Appellant’s competency had been meaningfully addressed. The

court particularly relied on its familiarity with the evaluator, as it was the same person the

court used when ordering its own evaluations. The court also found it relevant that the

evaluation occurred within the same general time period as the instant case, as it was

done approximately two months before the plea hearing. (Plea Hrg. Tr., p. 3.) Hence,

the record supports the court’s determination there was no need to prolong the case for

purposes of having another evaluation completed by the same evaluator within the same

time period.

{¶28} We also stress that, like Mills, while Appellant certainly engaged in

inappropriate behavior during the early hearings, he behaved appropriately at the plea

hearing. He was able to completely engage in a colloquy with the court and competently

follow the proceedings. There was nothing that occurred at this hearing to raise questions

Case No. 25 NO 0523 – 13 –

about his competency. To the contrary, Appellant’s behavior supports the trial court’s

determination.

{¶29} Again, contrary to appellate counsel’s claims, defense counsel did withdraw

the request for a competency evaluation:

THE COURT: . .. . Now, this matter is before the court today I believe

for a pretrial hearing or status conference but there are a couple things that

the court wants to address.

First of all, I believe there was a request for a competency evaluation,

[Defense Counsel], and I don't think your client completed that evaluation.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: He did not, Your Honor, but upon reviewing

Franklin County case there he was found competent so I would stipulate to

that entry that he is competent to stand trial, withdraw that motion and the

State and I do have an agreement for a plea on this case.

(Plea Hrg. Tr., p. 2.)

{¶30} While appellate counsel urges that this exchange does not truly evince

withdrawal of the motion, defense counsel clearly stated he sought to stipulate to the entry

finding Appellant competent and withdraw his motion regarding any competency

evaluation in this case. The court accepted the stipulation and proceeded with the

Crim.R. 11 colloquy. Thus, the record shows the court clearly allowed counsel to

withdraw the motion after reviewing the Franklin County judgment entry and addressing

competency with Appellant, himself.

Case No. 25 NO 0523 – 14 –

{¶31} Again, all parties reviewed the Franklin County judgment entry which found

Appellant competent during the timeframe of the instant proceedings, by the same

evaluator used by the trial court. Appellant’s counsel withdrew his motion for competency

evaluation. Thereafter, the court vigorously questioned Appellant regarding his

understanding of the proceedings. The record shows the court did not err in accepting

Appellant’s guilty plea after the issue of competency had been raised during the case.

Accordingly, Appellant’s sole assignment of error is without merit and is overruled.

Conclusion

{¶32} Appellant argues that the trial court erred in accepting his guilty plea after

defense counsel raised the issue of competency. This record demonstrates that

Appellant’s counsel withdrew his motion after the parties learned that Appellant had been

found competent following a recent evaluation performed by the same evaluator used by

the trial court. As such, Appellant’s argument is without merit and the judgment of the

trial court is affirmed.

Robb, P.J. concurs.

Hanni, J. concurs.

Case No. 25 NO 0523 [Cite as State v. Russell, 2025-Ohio-4654.]

For the reasons stated in the Opinion rendered herein, Appellant’s assignment of

error is overruled and it is the final judgment and order of this Court that the judgment of

the Court of Common Pleas of Noble County, Ohio, is affirmed. Costs waived.

A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate in

this case pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. It is ordered that a

certified copy be sent by the clerk to the trial court to carry this judgment into execution.

NOTICE TO COUNSEL

This document constitutes a final judgment entry.