Opinion
2022 CA 00068 2022 CA 00069
06-05-2023
STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee v. CHASE HEFFNER Defendant-Appellant
For Plaintiff-Appellee: J. MICHAEL KING ASSISTANT LAW DIRECTOR CITY OF NEWARK. For Defendant-Appellant: ANDREW T. SANDERSON BURKETT & SANDERSON, INC.
Appeal from the Licking County Municipal Court, Case Nos. 22-CRB-01043 &22-CRB-01044
For Plaintiff-Appellee: J. MICHAEL KING ASSISTANT LAW DIRECTOR CITY OF NEWARK.
For Defendant-Appellant: ANDREW T. SANDERSON BURKETT & SANDERSON, INC.
Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
OPINION
Delaney, J.
{¶1} Defendant-Appellant Chase Heffner appeals the August 2, 2022 judgment entries of conviction in Case Nos. 22-CRB-01044 and 22-CRB-01043 by the Licking County Municipal Court. Plaintiff-Appellee is the State of Ohio.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Civil Stalking Protection Orders
{¶2} On July 5, 2022, the Licking County Court of Common Pleas issued an Ex Parte Civil Stalking Protection Order against Defendant-Appellant Chase Heffner in Case No. 2022 CV 00705. The ex parte CPO listed C.R. and her two minor children as protected persons under the CPO, which was effective from July 5, 2022 to July 5, 2023. Heffner was served with the ex parte CPO on July 6, 2022. The full hearing on the ex parte CPO was scheduled for July 13, 2022.
{¶3} On July 6, 2022, the Licking County Court of Common Pleas issued an Ex Parte Civil Stalking Protection Order against Heffner in Case No. 2022 CV 00715. The ex parte CPO listed G.K. and D.K. as protected persons under the CPO, which was effective from July 6, 2022 to July 6, 2023. Heffner was served with the ex parte CPO on July 6, 2022. The full hearing on the ex parte CPO was scheduled for July 13, 2022.
{¶4} On July 6, 2022, the Licking County Court of Common Pleas issued an Ex Parte Domestic Violence Civil Protection order against Heffner in Case No. 22 DR 0640. The ex parte domestic CPO listed B.H. as the protected person under the CPO, which was effective from July 6, 2022 to July 6, 2023. Heffner was served with the CPO on July 6, 2022. It was scheduled for a full hearing on July 15, 2022.
Alleged Violations of the CPO
{¶5} During the night on July 9, 2022, G.K. heard someone knocking on the door to his apartment. He went downstairs and saw Heffner's silhouette in the window. He did not answer the door because he had the CPO against Heffner. G.K. could see Heffner's car with the headlights on in the parking lot of the apartment complex. G.K. told his wife, D.K. to stay upstairs and call the police. G.K. saw Heffner get into his car and drive away. D.K. called the City of Newark Police Department, who reported to the scene and took their statements.
{¶6} On July 9, 2022, C.R., who resided in the same apartment complex as G.K. and D.K., heard Heffner's car pull into the parking lot of the apartment complex. C.R. remembered the sound of Heffner's car from the previous day. She stepped outside her apartment and saw Heffner standing out in the grass between her apartment and her neighbor's apartment, which was within 500 feet of her. C.R. went back inside her apartment and when she looked back, the police had arrived. She gave the police a statement.
{¶7} The Newark Police Department was dispatched to B.H.'s home on July 10, 2022 in reference to a CPO violation. Heffner is B.H.'s grandson. She stated on July 10, 2022, she heard a knock on her apartment door and when she answered, Heffner was standing at her door. B.H. shut the door and told her friends to call the police. The police interviewed witnesses who stated they saw Heffner and spoke with him.
{¶8} The police located Heffner and arrested him. In Case No. 22-CRB-01044, Heffner was charged with two counts of violating a protection order (G.K. and C.R.), a first-degree misdemeanor in violation of R.C. 2919.27. In Case No. 22-CRB-01043, Heffner was charged with one count of violating a protection order (B.H.), a first-degree misdemeanor in violation of R.C. 2919.27.
{¶9} Heffner entered pleas of not guilty at the arraignment. He was notified of his right to appointed counsel. (T. 7). Heffner was placed in the Licking County Justice Center in lieu of bond.
{¶10} Case Nos. 22-CRB-01043 and 22-CRB-01044 were set for trial on August 2, 2022. The cases were not joined.
Bench Trial
{¶11} The two cases proceeded to a bench trial on August 2, 2022. Prior to the start of the trial, the trial court reviewed Heffner's choice to proceed without the assistance of counsel. (T. 5-8). During his questioning, the trial court expressed concern that Heffner could not understand the proceedings and was not capable of assisting counsel or himself in presenting a defense. (T. 8). Heffner stated he received mental health counseling in the past and he was taking prescribed mental health medication, which he was regularly taking while in jail. (T. 9). The trial court then told Heffner that one of three things was going to happen that day: they were going to have a trial, Heffner was going to ask for a continuance so the court could appoint counsel, or the court was going to order a psychological evaluation to verify Heffner's competency to stand trial. (T. 9). Heffner responded, "no, we can have a trial." (T. 10). The trial court asked Heffner if it was his intention to waive his right to an attorney, to which Heffner responded in the affirmative. The trial court read the waiver of attorney form to Heffner, to which Heffner again responded it was his intention to give up his right to a lawyer. (T. 10, 11). Heffner signed the attorney waiver form filed on August 2, 2022.
{¶12} The bench trial proceeded. The first witnesses called by the State were the Licking County Deputy Clerk of Courts and Officer Dan Young, establishing the ex parte CPOs issued by the Licking County Court of Common Pleas in Case Nos. 2022 CV 00705, 2022 CV 00715, and 22 DR 0640 were served by Officer Young to Heffner on July 6, 2022. (T. 12-24, 60, 62).
{¶13} G.K. testified to his experiences on July 9, 2022, when Heffner knocked on his apartment window while G.K. was in the apartment with D.K. (T. 33). G.K. recognized Heffner and his car parked in the parking lot. (T. 36-37). B.H. testified that Heffner came to her apartment on July 10, 2022. (T. 49). R.S. testified that he witnessed Heffner at B.H.'s apartment on July 10, 2022. (T. 56). On July 9, 2022, C.R. testified that she saw Heffner standing in the grass between her neighbor's apartment and her apartment, which was within 500 feet of her. (T. 67).
{¶14} The State rested its case. Heffner chose to call D.K. as a defense witness. (T. 77). He then testified on his own behalf. (T. 83). Heffner testified that he did not violate the ex parte CPO orders because he was never served with the orders until he was in jail after being arrested for violating the orders. (T. 88). He was previously unaware of the orders. The only protection order he was aware of was the one involving B.H. (T. 93). He stated that he was handed the orders and then he threw them away because he did not understand he needed them. (T. 88).
{¶15} On rebuttal, the State called Officer Scott Thomas who testified that when he placed Heffner in custody, Heffner told him that he had been served with the CPO orders. (T. 100). Heffner said he did not understand why he could not go to G.K. or C.R.'s homes or be within the 500 feet window. (T. 100). Officer Thomas said Heffner told him that he threw the orders away. (T. 100).
{¶16} At the conclusion of the evidence, the trial court first found Heffner guilty in Case No. 22-CRB-01043 as to violating the ex parte domestic violence CPO protecting B.H. The trial court determined that Heffner admitted that he had been served a copy of the CPO and he contacted B.H. after he was served with the order. (T. 106). Second, as to Case No. 22-CRB-01044, the trial court found the testimony of the Deputy Clerk and Officer Young to be credible that the ex parte CPOs were issued, filed with the court, and served upon Heffner on July 6, 2022. (T. 106). The trial court further found G.K. and C.R.'s testimony credible that Heffner had improper contact with them on July 9, 2022. (T. 107).
Sentencing
{¶17} The trial court filed its judgment entry of conviction on August 2, 2022. In Case No. 22-CRB-01044, the trial court sentenced Heffner to serve 60 days in the Licking County Justice Center, with 30 days suspended. The sentences were ordered to be served consecutively to each other and consecutively to the sentence imposed in Case No. 22-CRB-01043, which was 60 days in the Licking County Justice Center and 30 days suspended. He was placed on probation for one year. Terms and conditions of probation included that he undergo both substance abuse and mental health assessments and comply with any recommendations for further counseling. He was also ordered to abide by the CPO at issue in the case.
{¶18} Heffner filed his notice of appeal on August 30, 2022. He also filed a motion to stay the execution of the sentence pending appeal. After an oral hearing, the trial court denied the motion to stay the execution of the sentence on September 15, 2022.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
{¶19} Heffner raises three Assignments of Error: I. THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL HEREIN. [TR. AT 10.]
II. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED HARMFUL ERROR IN IMPROPERLY JOINING THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW. [TR. AT 5, 106-107.]
III. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED HARMFUL ERROR IN FAILING TO QUESTION THE COMPETENCY OF THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW. [TR. AT 8, 9, 84-87, 91-92, 109, 110-111.]
ANALYSIS
I. and III.
{¶20} We consider Heffner's first and third Assignments of Error together because they are somewhat related. Heffner contends there was a question of his competency to stand trial, which should have been addressed by the trial court. The trial court's decision to proceed with the bench trial instead of ordering a competency evaluation also deprived Heffner of the effective assistance of trial counsel because Heffner poorly represented himself at trial.
{¶21} We first address the issue of whether the trial court abused its discretion in failing to order a competency evaluation of Heffner. We review the decisions of the trial court regarding competency evaluations for an abuse of discretion. State v. Jefferson, 5th Dist. Richland No. 2021 CA 0081, 2022-Ohio-3448, ¶ 38 citing State v. Dye, 5th Dist. Licking No. 99-CA-2, 1999 WL 770619, (Sept. 2, 1999). In order to find that the trial court abused its discretion, we must find that the trial court's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable and not merely an error of law or judgment. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983).
{¶22} In determining whether a defendant is competent to stand trial, the test is"' "whether [the defendant] has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding-and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him." '" State v. Jefferson, 2022-Ohio-3448, ¶ 39 quoting State v. Neyland, 139 Ohio St.3d 353, 2014-Ohio-1914, 12 N.E.3d 1112, ¶ 32, citing State v. Berry, 72 Ohio St.3d 354, 359, 650 N.E.2d 433 (1995), quoting Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 80 S.Ct. 788, 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960). We review the record to determine if Heffner raised a genuine issue as to his competency to stand trial and whether the trial court abused its discretion by not ordering an evaluation.
{¶23} Heffner did not request a competency evaluation at any point during the proceedings. Heffner's competency was raised sua sponte by the trial court prior to the start of the bench trial. (T. 8). Heffner asked the trial court what charges he was facing that day. (T. 8). The trial court inquired of Heffner:
THE COURT: Violation of protection order. Um...Mr. Heffner the more I speak with you the more I have concerns that perhaps you may not understand the nature of these proceedings and may not be capable of assisting counsel or your own self in presenting a defense. Do you or have you received mental health counseling in the past?
MR. HEFFNER: Yes.
THE COURT: And do you normally take medication for any mental health conditions that you have?
MR. HEFFNER: Yes.
THE COURT: And have you been taking those since you have been in the jail?
MR. HEFFNER: Yes.
THE COURT: You have?
MR. HEFFNER: Yes I took them.I took them right before I came here...
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. HEFFNER: Like ten minutes before I came here.
THE COURT: Okay do you know what you take?
MR. HEFFNER: Seroquel and Depakote.
THE COURT: Okay and you have been getting that since you have been in jail?
MR. HEFFNER: Yes.
THE COURT: All right um.so basically one of three things is going to happen today. We are going to have a trial, you are going to ask for a continuance so that I can appoint counsel or depending upon the direction that our conversation goes I may order that the or that a psychological evaluation be conducted to verify your competency to stand trial. And that is a legal term. The legal term of competency means that a person is capable of understanding the nature of the proceedings against them and is capable of assisting counsel or himself in defending himself and I do have
a concern about that because you seem to be very confused about what the charges are and what the process is and everything else.
MR. HEFFNER: No we can have a trial.
THE COURT: All right now is it your intention to waive your right to an attorney then? And when I say waive your right to an attorney that means is it your intention to give up your right to an attorney? Do you wish to represent yourself?
MR. HEFFNER: Yes.(T. 8-10).
{¶24} After the State rested, Heffner presented his case. During Heffner's testimony he stated, "I am not crazy. I have some kind of gift that I.and I don't know how to explain it. It is. I have talked to mental health and I am on the right meds, I am perfectly sane. I am perfectly okay, I am just smart and I learn from everything that I do." (T. 85). He further testified that he had a mental health evaluation within the past four or five days, where he was prescribed Depakote. (T. 86). He also spoke to mental health in the jail, and he was cleared. (T. 87). Heffner testified that at some point in the recent past, he voluntarily went to the hospital due to his mental health concerns, but after an examination, he was discharged from the hospital. (T. 87).
{¶25} Heffner was charged with violating a protection order, pursuant to R.C. 2919.27. Under R.C. 2919.27(D), "In a prosecution for a violation of this section, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the protection order or consent agreement was served on the defendant if the prosecution proves that the defendant was shown the protection order or consent agreement or a copy of either or a judge, magistrate, or law enforcement officer informed the defendant that a protection order or consent agreement had been issued, and proves that the defendant recklessly violated the terms of the order or agreement." During Heffner's case, he presented evidence that he was not aware of the protection orders he was accused of violating. He testified that he was not served with the protection orders until he was in jail after being arrested for violating the protection orders. (T. 88). Based on Heffner's testimony, the State called Officer Scott Thomas as a rebuttal witness, who testified that he spoke with Heffner. (T. 99). Officer Thomas testified that his conversation with Heffner showed was aware of the protection orders before he was arrested for violating the protection orders. (T. 100).
{¶26} Upon this record, we do not find the trial court abused its discretion by not ordering Heffner to undergo a competency evaluation. Heffner did not request a competency evaluation. He testified that he had recently undergone a mental evaluation where he was prescribed medication, but no further action was taken. Heffner understood the proceedings against him and in fact assisted in his own defense by providing conflicting evidence as to an element of the charge, necessitating the State to call a witness to rebut Heffner's testimony.
{¶27} In his first Assignment of Error, Heffner contends the trial court properly accepted his waiver of the right to counsel, but the trial court denied Heffner the effective assistance of counsel. Heffner's performance during the bench trial supports the finding that Heffner was not denied the effective assistance of trial counsel.
{¶28} "The Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant both the right to counsel and 'the right to elect self-representation instead.'" Village v. Lockert, 9th Dist. Summit No. 30229, 2023-Ohio-440, 2023 WL 2004306, ¶ 5 quoting State v. Yeager, 9th Dist. Summit Nos. 28604, 28617, 2018-Ohio-574, ¶ 6, quoting State v. Tucker, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 13CA010339, 2016-Ohio-1353, ¶ 11. However, "[a] defendant who wishes to represent himself must knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waive his right to counsel." Yeager at ¶ 6, citing State v. Gibson, 45 Ohio St.2d 366 (1976), paragraph one of the syllabus. Crim.R. 44(B) states:
Where a defendant charged with a petty offense is unable to obtain counsel, the court may assign counsel to represent the defendant. When a defendant charged with a petty offense is unable to obtain counsel, no sentence of confinement may be imposed upon the defendant, unless after being fully advised by the court, the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waives assignment of counsel.
{¶29} Heffner does not argue his waiver of the right to counsel was improper. In his appellate brief, Heffner concedes the trial court obtained an oral waiver and a written waiver of the right to counsel. (Appellant's Brief, page 4). He states, "the record is such that Mr. Heffner cannot effectively contend that any impropriety occurred with the securing of the waiver by the trial court." (Appellant's Brief, page 4).
{¶30} Heffner contends the error lies in that Heffner, as a pro se defendant, did not represent himself well at trial. As a lay person, Heffner argues that he lacked the necessary training to understand the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure. He did not know to object to the trial court trying the two separate criminal cases as a single matter (as raised in Heffner's second Assignment of Error). The issue of whether Heffner knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived assignment of counsel is not before this Court. Heffner waived his right to counsel and elected to represent himself. A defendant who elects to represent himself cannot complain about the quality of his own defense. State v. Spencer, 5th Dist. Licking No. 2021 CA 00085, 2023-Ohio-596, 2023 WL 2317187, ¶ 64 citing State v. Khamsi, 2020-Ohio-1472, 153 N.E.3d 900, ¶ 42 (1st Dist.) citing Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 834, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562, fn. 46.
{¶31} Heffner's first and third Assignments of Error are overruled.
II.
{¶32} In his second Assignment of Error, Heffner contends the trial court committed harmful error when it improperly joined the two criminal cases and proceeded to one bench trial. We disagree.
{¶33} Case Nos. 22-CRB-01043 and 22-CRB-01044 were not joined. The trial court set both cases for trial on August 2, 2022. While Heffner made no objection at trial to proceeding on both cases, on appeal he contends that he suffered prejudice based on the joinder. Specifically, he argues the trial court erred under the evidentiary rules when it considered evidence from the unrelated cases to reach its judgment.
{¶34} Because Heffner did not object at the trial court level, we must consider this Assignment of Error under the plain error standard. Crim.R. 52(B); State v. Wilson, 5th Dist. No. 16-CAA-08-0035, 2017-Ohio-5724, 93 N.E.3d 1282, ¶ 44. In order to prevail under a plain-error analysis, Heffner bears the burden of demonstrating that the outcome of the trial clearly would have been different but for the error. State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91, 372 N.E.2d 804 (1978). Notice of plain error "is to be taken with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice." Id. at paragraph three of the syllabus.
{¶35} The two cases were tried to the bench, not to a jury. "In a bench trial, a trial court is presumed to have considered only the relevant, material and competent evidence." State v. Grimes, 5th Dist. Richland No. 2019CA0103, 2020-Ohio-4357, ¶ 64 quoting State v. Bays, 87 Ohio St.3d 15, 716 N.E.2d 1126 (1999); State v. Teagarden, 5th Dist. Licking No. 08-CA-39, 2008-Ohio-6986. A judge is presumed in reaching their decision, the judge did not rely on anything that they should not have relied upon, unless the contrary affirmatively appears from the record. State v. Johnson, 5th Dist. No. 2014CA00189, 2015-Ohio-3113, 41 N.E.3d 104, 2015 WL 4624478, ¶ 91 citing State v. White, 15 Ohio St.2d 146, 151, 239 N.E.2d 65; In re P.D.R., 5th Dist. Stark No. 2010-CA-00268, 2011-Ohio-1036, ¶ 53; State v. Eubank, 60 Ohio St.2d 183, 187, 398 N.E.2d 567, 569-570 (1979); Columbus v. Guthmann, 175 Ohio St. 282, 194 N.E.2d 143 (1963), paragraph three of the syllabus.
{¶36} Upon our review of the record, it appears the trial court considered only properly admitted evidence as it related to each charge. The trial court found that Heffner admitted he was aware of the ex parte CPO protecting B.H. and that he contacted her after the order was in place. (T. 106). The trial court found the State's witnesses to be more credible than Heffner to show that Heffner had been served with the CPO protecting G.K., D.K., and C.R. and he had contacted G.K. and D.K. after he was served with said CPOs. (T. 106-107). The record supports the trial court's findings. There is no error.
{¶37} Heffner's second Assignment of Error is overruled.
CONCLUSION
{¶38} The judgment of the Licking County Municipal Court is affirmed.
Delaney, J, Gwin, PJ and Hoffman, J, concur.