INCOMPETENT - JURISDICTION: The trial court's order continuing its jurisdiction over an incompetent defendant and committing him to a facility after an R.C. 2945.39 hearing was contrary to law because it incorrectly indicated the maximum prison term for the offense for which the defendant had been indicted.
Decided 2017-09-08
[Cite as State v. Owsley,
2017-Ohio-7490
.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO : APPEAL NO. C-160586
TRIAL NO. B-1505289
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
vs. :
O P I N I O N.
JULIUS OWSLEY, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
Judgment Appealed From Is: Reversed and Cause Remanded
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: September 8, 2017
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Paula E. Adams,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,
John D. Hill, Jr., for Defendant-Appellant.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
C UNNINGHAM , Judge.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Julius Owsley appeals from the order of the
Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas continuing its jurisdiction over him after
finding him incompetent and ordering his commitment to the facility at Summit
Behavioral Heathcare. Because the trial court’s order contains an error affecting the
maximum duration of the court’s continuing jurisdiction, we reverse and remand for
the trial court to correct the order.
{¶2} Owsley was indicted for felonious assault in violation of R.C.
2903.11(A)(1), a second-degree felony. Subsequently, the trial court found him
incompetent to stand trial and ordered him to undergo restoration treatment at the
facility at Twin Valley Behavioral Healthcare for a period of time not to exceed 12
months.
{¶3} Months later, on June 7, 2016, the trial court held an R.C. 2945.39
hearing and found there was not a substantial probability that Owsley would become
competent to stand trial even if he were provided a continued course of treatment.
After finding by clear and convincing evidence that Owsley committed the offense of
felonious assault as charged in the indictment and that he “[wa]s a mentally ill
person subject to court order,” the court entered an order retaining jurisdiction over
Owsley and committing Owsley to the facility at Summit Behavioral Healthcare. In
its order, the trial court also indicated that the maximum possible prison term for
Owsley’s offense was “11 years.”
{¶4} By operation of R.C. 2945.401(A) and (J)(1)(b), the trial court’s
jurisdiction over Owsley continues until the final termination of the commitment,
which will occur at the expiration of the maximum prison term that Owsley could
have received if he had been convicted of the charged offense, unless the court on an
earlier date terminates the commitment pursuant to R.C. 2945.401(J)(1)(a) or (c).
2
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶5} In his sole assignment of error, Owsley argues that the trial court’s
June 7, 2016 order was contrary to law because it indicated that the maximum
possible prison term for the version of felonious assault for which he was indicted
was 11 years, when it was actually eight years. He requests that this court reverse the
trial court’s judgment and remand the cause for the correction of the deficiency.
{¶6} We hold that the assigned error is meritorious. As conceded by the
state, Owsley was indicted for the second-degree felony version of felonious assault
that carries a maximum penalty of eight years’ imprisonment. Thus, the June 7,
2016 order should have indicated that the maximum possible penalty was an eight-
year term. Because Owsley has demonstrated that the trial court’s June 7, 2016
order was contrary to law, we sustain the assignment of error.
{¶7} Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand the
cause for the trial court to issue a corrected order reflecting that the maximum
penalty for the offense was an eight-year prison term.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
MOCK, P.J., and MILLER, J., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.
3
