[Cite as State v. Washington,
2024-Ohio-5981.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
ALLEN COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
CASE NO. 1-24-17
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
KENYATTA K. WASHINGTON, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Allen County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court No. CR2023 0144
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: December 23, 2024
APPEARANCES:
William T. Cramer for Appellant
John R. Willamowski, Jr. for Appellee
Case No. 1-24-17
MILLER, J.
{¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Kenyatta Washington (“Washington”), appeals
from the February 22, 2024 Judgment Entry by the Allen County Court of Common
Pleas. Washington argues the trial court erred in determining he was competent to
stand trial and in ordering an (allegedly) unlawful sentence. For the reasons that
follow, we affirm.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶2} This case stems from shootings at two locations on April 22, 2023. The
first shooting ended with a person struck by bullets and the other ended with two
people dead from multiple gunshot wounds. In his brief, Washington acknowledges
he committed the shootings.
{¶3} On June 15, 2023, Washington was indicted on six counts: (1)
aggravated burglary, pursuant to R.C. 2911.11(A)(2), a first-degree felony; (2)
felonious assault, pursuant to R.C. 2903.11(A)(2), a second-degree felony; (3)
aggravated murder, pursuant to R.C. 2903.01(A), an unclassified felony; (4) murder,
pursuant to R.C. 2903.02(B), an unclassified felony; (5) aggravated murder,
pursuant to R.C. 2903.01(A), an unclassified felony; and (6) murder, pursuant to
R.C. 2903.02(B), an unclassified felony. Each of the six counts contained a firearm
specification pursuant to R.C. 2941.145(A).
-2-
Case No. 1-24-17
{¶4} On September 22, 2023, Washington filed a motion requesting leave to
plead not guilty by reason of insanity and, pursuant to R.C. 2945.371, for an
evaluation of his present mental condition (competency) and his mental condition
at the time of the alleged incident. The trial court ordered the requested evaluations.
{¶5} On November 1, 2023, the psychologist who evaluated Washington
issued her reports. In the report on competency, the psychologist found Washington
was not an intellectually disabled or mentally ill individual, that he was capable of
understanding the nature and the objective of the proceedings against him, and that
he was capable of assisting in his defense. She therefore opined that Washington
was competent to stand trial. Her opinion was based on a review of a variety of
documents provided to her (including Washington’s medical and mental health
records), as well as her discussion with Washington—which lasted over an hour.
On November 6, 2023, the parties stipulated to admission of the psychologist’s
reports, the trial court found that Washington was competent to stand trial, and the
court set a trial date.
{¶6} Washington subsequently moved for a change of plea hearing. At that
hearing, he tendered guilty pleas to counts two, four, and six, along with their
firearm specifications. The remaining counts and specifications were dismissed,
pursuant to the negotiated plea. The trial court accepted the guilty pleas and, on
February 22, 2024, sentenced Washington as follows: a mandatory term of
-3-
Case No. 1-24-17
imprisonment of eight years (minimum) to 12 years (maximum) for the felonious
assault charge in count two, along with a mandatory term of three years
imprisonment for its specification; a mandatory term of imprisonment of 15 years
(minimum) to life for the murder charge in count four, along with a mandatory term
of three years imprisonment for its specification; and a mandatory term of
imprisonment of 15 years (minimum) to life for the murder charge in count six,
along with a mandatory term of three years imprisonment for its specification. The
court ordered the terms to be served consecutively, for an aggregate mandatory term
of 47 years (minimum) up to 51 years to life (maximum). (Feb. 22, 2024 Judgment
Entry of Sentencing). This appeal followed.
II. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
{¶7} Washington raises two assignments of error for our review:
First Assignment of Error
Appellant’s due process rights were violated by the trial court’s
determination that he was competent to stand trial.
Second Assignment of Error
The trial court ordered an unlawful sentence by imposing a mandatory
prison term on the felonious assault.
III. DISCUSSION
-4-
Case No. 1-24-17
A. First Assignment of Error
{¶8} In the first assignment of error, Washington argues that, under the
circumstances, “the trial court acted unreasonably and abused its discretion in
finding [him] competent to stand trial.” (Appellant’s Brief at 6). He complains that
the psychologist who evaluated him for competency to stand trial allegedly “did not
address the impact of Washington’s underlying symptoms”—namely, “Washington
reported hearing voices and seeing black dots around the room while in jail,
symptoms that appeared to continue even after being treated with psychotropic
drugs.” (Id.).
1. Standard of Review
{¶9} We review the trial court’s finding that Washington was competent to
stand trial for an abuse of discretion. State v. Were, 2008-Ohio-2762, ¶ 53. “A trial
court’s finding that a defendant is competent to stand trial will not be disturbed when
there is some reliable and credible evidence supporting those findings.” Id. at ¶ 46.
2. Applicable Law
{¶10} “A defendant is presumed to be competent to stand trial, and the
burden is on the defendant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is
not competent.” Were at ¶ 45. Specifically, at all relevant times, the statute
concerning competency to stand trial provided,
A defendant is presumed to be competent to stand trial. If, after a
hearing, the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that,
-5-
Case No. 1-24-17
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.
R.C. 2945.37(G). The Supreme Court of Ohio has explained that “‘[i]ncompetency
must not be equated with mere mental or emotional instability or even outright
insanity.’” Were at ¶ 47, quoting State v. Bock,
28 Ohio St.3d 108, 110 (1986).
Moreover, “‘[a] defendant may be emotionally disturbed or even psychotic and still
be capable of understanding the charges against him and of assisting his counsel.’”
Id.
3. Analysis
{¶11} We disagree with Washington’s assertion that the psychologist “did
not address the impact of [his] underlying symptoms.” (Appellant’s Brief at 6). The
psychologist’s competency report specifically acknowledged that Washington
reported hearing voices and seeing black dots around the room while in jail, and she
considered that information in the court-ordered evaluation.1 In addition, and
among other items, the psychologist explained in her thorough report:
• Washington said he had used marijuana daily, starting at the age of 14
and continuing until the day of his arrest for the charged offenses.
1
The report explains that, prior to the evaluation, Washington was informed of the purpose, procedures, and
non-confidential nature of the evaluation, as well as his forensic participant rights; he indicated his
understanding of this information verbally; and he signed an Informed Participation Statement.
-6-
Case No. 1-24-17
• Washington suspected that the marijuana he used a week prior to the
charged offenses had been laced with hallucinogenic mushrooms.
• Washington said he started to experience increased paranoia and
visual disturbances one week prior to the charged offenses, which he
attributed to inadvertently smoking marijuana laced with a
hallucinogen.
• Washington suggested that his symptoms continued for a short time
after he discontinued his drug use with his arrest and incarceration,
and those perceptual disturbances were treated with medication at the
jail.
• Washington’s description of his symptoms, coupled with the available
information, suggested that his difficulties were likely substance
induced.
• Washington denied any current symptoms of psychosis, such as
hallucinations or delusions, and none were apparent in his
presentation.
• Washington discussed the offenses charged in a logical, coherent, and
goal-directed manner.
• Washington was able to demonstrate an adequate and realistic
understanding of basic courtroom concepts, as well as questions
posed, and discussion with Washington suggested that he is currently
capable of disclosing information to an attorney, comprehending
instructions, and evaluating legal advice.
• Washington’s thoughts were logical and coherent, he was motivated
for a favorable outcome in his case, he was psychiatrically stable, and
he behaved appropriately during the evaluation.
{¶12} Clearly, “some reliable and credible evidence” supports the trial
court’s finding that Washington was competent to stand trial. Were, 2008-Ohio-
2762, at ¶ 45-47, 53. The trial court did not abuse its discretion. Accordingly,
Washington’s first assignment of error is overruled.
-7-
Case No. 1-24-17
B. Second Assignment of Error
{¶13} In the second assignment of error, Washington says the trial court
imposed the prison term for his felonious assault conviction (i.e., count two) as
mandatory time, based on R.C. 2929.13(F)(8), because it was accompanied by a
firearm specification. Washington concedes that, in imposing a mandatory prison
term for the felonious assault conviction, the trial court followed our binding
precedent in State v. Wolfe, 2022-Ohio-96 (3d Dist.) and reaffirmed in State v.
Peters,
2023-Ohio-4362 (3d Dist.). (See Appellant’s Brief at 7). However, he asks
us to reconsider our holdings in those two cases in light of an Eighth District
decision for which the Supreme Court of Ohio has granted review: State v. Logan,
2023-Ohio-3353 (8th Dist.). We decline to do so. Washington pleaded guilty to
felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2)—a second-degree felony—and
to its accompanying firearm specification. The trial court did not err in following
precedent and imposing a mandatory prison term for the felony felonious assault
conviction.
Wolfe at ¶ 24-25;
Peters at ¶ 85 (“R.C. 2929.13(F)(8) obligates the trial
court to impose a mandatory prison term for any felony (except carrying concealed
weapons) where the offender had or controlled a firearm when committing that
offense”). Washington’s second assignment of error is overruled.
-8-
Case No. 1-24-17
IV. CONCLUSION
{¶14} For the foregoing reasons, Appellant’s assignments of error are
overruled. Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant in the particulars
assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the Allen County Court of Common
Pleas.
Judgment Affirmed
ZIMMERMAN, J., concur.
WALDICK, J., dissents.
For the reasons set forth in my dissenting opinion in State v. Peters, 2023-
Ohio-4362 (3d Dist.), I respectfully dissent in the disposition of the second
assignment of error. I would sustain the second assignment of error, reverse the
sentence imposed by the trial court, and remand the case for further proceedings.
/jlm
-9-
