[Cite as State v. Lowe,
2025-Ohio-4635.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LAKE COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2025-L-037
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Criminal Appeal from the
- vs - Court of Common Pleas
DOUGLAS W. LOWE,
Trial Court No. 2024 CR 001359
Defendant-Appellant.
OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
Decided: October 6, 2025
Judgment: Affirmed
Charles E. Coulson, Lake County Prosecutor, and Jennifer A. McGee, Assistant
Prosecutor, Lake County Administration Building, 105 Main Street, P.O. Box 490,
Painesville, OH 44077 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Adam Parker, Goldberg Dowell & Associates, L.L.C., 323 West Lakeside Avenue, Suite
450, Cleveland, OH 44113 (For Defendant-Appellant).
SCOTT LYNCH, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Douglas W. Lowe, appeals from the judgment of the
trial court, denying his request for a competency reevaluation. For the following reasons,
we affirm the judgment of the lower court.
{¶2} On November 21, 2024, the Lake County Grand Jury indicted Lowe for
Harassment with a Bodily Substance, a felony of the fifth degree, in violation of R.C.
2921.38(B); and Criminal Trespass, a misdemeanor of the fourth degree, in violation of
R.C. 2911.21(A)(1).
{¶3} Following arraignment, the court issued a judgment entry indicating that
Lowe’s “competence to stand trial is in issue” and appointed a court psychologist to
evaluate Lowe. The court subsequently ordered Lowe to remain at Central Ohio
Behavioral for a 20-day competency evaluation.
{¶4} Dr. Andrew Philip submitted a December 20, 2024 report, in which he
concluded that Lowe is able to appropriately interact with others, plan a legal strategy,
and evaluate legal advice. Dr. Philip found that Lowe was able to identify the charges,
plea options, courtroom personnel, and possible outcomes and penalties. The report
indicated that Lowe’s treating psychiatrist diagnosed him with antisocial personality
disorder. Dr. Philip observed personality traits consistent with this disorder. He indicated
that it was his opinion that Lowe “does not currently have evidence of a severe mental
illness” and is capable of understanding the nature and objectives of the proceedings
against him. The court issued a December 31, 2024 judgment entry, finding Lowe
competent to stand trial.
{¶5} On February 6, 2025, a hearing was held at which there was discussion
regarding Lowe’s decision not to enter a plea. Lowe stated that there was a conflict of
interest, ineffective assistance of counsel, and his speedy trial rights were violated. When
the court began to discuss the jury trial, Lowe interjected: “Secure party creditor, living
and breathing, man of the land. The debt you all seek is in debt to me so before I can
pay you, you've got to pay me. I’m God. My authority is above everybody’s authority in
this room” and “[t]his hearing in court is nothing but a circus full of clowns.”
{¶6} The court held a status hearing on February 10, 2025, at which it indicated:
“Mr. Lowe’s behavior in the courtroom the last time we saw him gave me some concern,
so . . . I went back and read the competency evaluation.” The court observed that “Mr.
PAGE 2 OF 10
Case No. 2025-L-037
Lowe from the moment I walked in was standing, interrupting the Court, and refused to
stay in the court, so he voluntarily absented himself from this proceeding.” Prior to leaving
the hearing, Lowe indicated that he was being illegally detained and asked the officers to
“arrest these imposters.” The court concluded that Lowe’s “behavior is not based on any
mental health issue, it’s based on his antisocial personality traits and it’s the opinion of
the Court based on the competency evaluation that I received in this matter.”
{¶7} On the same date, defense counsel filed a motion seeking a competency
reevaluation, observing that Lowe refused to meet with counsel, be formally processed
into the jail, and wear clothing while in jail. The next day, the court held a hearing on the
motion. The court noted that an evaluation was unsuccessfully attempted in October
2024, due to Lowe’s lack of cooperation, but that he was evaluated and found competent
in December. In support of Lowe’s position, defense counsel indicated that Lowe had
met with counsel only once and “was very argumentative,” refused other attempts to
meet, and exhibited erratic behavior. Counsel pointed to Lowe’s statements that “he is
God” and noted that “I believe he made those same comments to the medical examiners”
at the time of the competency evaluation. Counsel believed Lowe’s behavior had “gotten
far more erratic” and his mental state had gone downhill in the past few months. While
the court noted that Lowe had been disruptive and refused to attend certain hearings, it
reiterated that Lowe’s behavior “is based on his antisocial personality traits, not any
issues with competence.” The court observed that he used goal-oriented behavior like
bribing jail employees to get extra food. It concluded that he was not given medications
regularly while at the facility during his evaluation, “so this isn’t someone who
decompensated when he got back to the jail. He just refuses to cooperate.” It found that
PAGE 3 OF 10
Case No. 2025-L-037
Lowe remained competent.
{¶8} Prior to trial, the State dismissed the Criminal Trespass charge. At trial,
testimony established that Lowe spit on an officer. The jury found Lowe guilty of
Harassment with a Bodily Substance and the court ordered him to serve a one-year prison
term.
{¶9} Lowe timely appeals and raises the following assignment of error:
{¶10} “The Court Abused Its Discretion in Denying Appellant’s Motion for a
Competency Evaluation.”
Competency Evaluations
{¶11} Lowe argues that the court erred in denying his request for a competency
reevaluation given his erratic behavior and lack of cooperation with defense counsel.
{¶12} “Fundamental principles of due process require that a criminal defendant
who is legally incompetent shall not be subjected to trial.” State v. Berry, 72 Ohio St.3d
354, 359 (1995). To be competent to stand trial, a defendant must have a “sufficient
present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational
understanding” and “a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings
against him.” Dusky v. United States,
362 U.S. 402 (1960). “[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.” State v. Neyland,
2014-Ohio-1914, ¶ 32.
{¶13} “[T]he court, prosecutor, or defense may raise the issue of the defendant’s
competence to stand trial” and, “[i]f the issue is raised before the trial has commenced,
the court shall hold a hearing on the issue.” R.C. 2945.37(B). “If the issue of a
defendant’s competence to stand trial is raised . . . the court may order one or more
PAGE 4 OF 10
Case No. 2025-L-037
evaluations of the defendant’s present mental condition . . .” R.C. 2945.371(A). “[W]hen
the initial hearing on a competency motion is held, the trial court is only required to give
the defendant, or his counsel, the chance to submit evidence on the issue.” State v. Peric,
2019-Ohio-1164, ¶ 27 (11th Dist.), citing State v. Bailey,
90 Ohio App.3d 58, 67 (11th
Dist. 1992). “If the evidence presented at that initial hearing ‘raises a genuine question
as to the defendant’s competency, the court can order that one or more evaluations be
performed. If it does not, the court can find the defendant competent and proceed to
trial.’”
Id., citing
Bailey at 67. “[T]here is no one sign that triggers the need for a
competency evaluation” but factors determined relevant to this issue include a
defendant’s irrational behavior, demeanor at trial, and “any prior medical opinion on
competence to stand trial.” State v. Lawson,
2021-Ohio-3566, ¶ 70, citing Drope v.
Missouri,
420 U.S. 162, 180 (1975).
{¶14} “When the issue of a defendant’s competency is raised, it is within the trial
court’s discretion whether an evaluation should be conducted.” State v. Locke, 2015-
Ohio-1067, ¶ 102 (11th Dist.). An abuse of discretion is the court’s “‘failure to exercise
sound, reasonable, and legal decision-making.’” State v. Beechler, 2010-Ohio-1900, ¶
62 (2d Dist.), quoting Black’s Law Dictionary (8th Ed. 2004).
Irrational Behavior and Antisocial Personality Disorder Diagnosis
{¶15} Lowe argues that the court failed to give weight to the evidence of his
“irrational behavior” and gave “undue emphasis” to his antisocial personality disorder
diagnosis.
{¶16} In denying the request for a competency reevaluation, the trial court
considered its past evaluation and Dr. Philip’s report, which made detailed findings on
PAGE 5 OF 10
Case No. 2025-L-037
Lowe’s ability to understand and participate in the proceedings. The court also noted how
the antisocial personality disorder diagnosis helped explain some of Lowe’s erratic
behavior. While Lowe argues the court gave undue emphasis to this diagnosis, it was
relevant to determine whether Lowe’s behavior was due to incompetence or something
else. When reviewed with all of the findings regarding Lowe’s ability to understand and
participate in the court proceedings, it helped explain that his decisions not to aid counsel
were due to reasons other than incompetence to stand trial.
{¶17} Courts have found that antisocial personality disorder is a relevant factor
supporting a competency finding and that such a diagnosis does not render a defendant
incompetent. State v. Williams, 2003-Ohio-4164, ¶ 64 (diagnosis of antisocial personality
disorder did not provide a basis to find a defendant incompetent to stand trial); State v.
Daniel,
2016-Ohio-5231, ¶ 24 (8th Dist.) (finding a defendant competent where he was
uncooperative with defense counsel, the court, and medical professionals, and the
evaluation indicated he had antisocial personality disorder). Further, we recognize that
“mental illness alone does not render a defendant incompetent.” State v. Bishop, 2025-
Ohio-1784, ¶ 18 (11th Dist.).
{¶18} Lowe also argues that the court failed to consider that, according to the prior
competency report, a key criterion for a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder was
unknown: “evidence of conduct disorder in Mr. Lowe’s youth.” Dr. Philip’s report indicated
that, although Lowe’s behavior was consistent with antisocial personality disorder, there
was a lack of evidence regarding whether Lowe demonstrated behavior consistent with
this disorder in his youth, a criterion for a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder. It
is not clear if that information was available to the treating psychiatrist who diagnosed
PAGE 6 OF 10
Case No. 2025-L-037
Lowe. We observe that the parties stipulated to Dr. Philip’s report and finding in
December 2024 and defense counsel did not raise concerns relating to whether Lowe
was properly diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder at that time.
{¶19} Regardless, it is not necessary that a specific diagnosis be made to find that
Lowe was competent. The court considered this information as a reason explaining the
behavior that defense counsel expressed concern about and it aided in a determination
that this behavior was not due to incompetence. There is no question that Dr. Philip
opined Lowe was competent to stand trial, which he supported with various findings
demonstrating Lowe understood the legal process. Lowe’s outbursts and erratic behavior
alone do not render him incompetent to stand trial since “[i]ncompetency must not be
equated with mere mental or emotional instability.” (Citations omitted.) State v. Zeigler,
2024-Ohio-2953, ¶ 19 (11th Dist.). A defendant with mental or emotional instability can
“still be capable of understanding the charges against him and of assisting his counsel.”
State v. Bock,
28 Ohio St.3d 108, 110 (1986). The trial court “was in the best position to
observe appellant’s demeanor” and consider this behavior in conjunction with the other
evidence relating to competency. State v. Nickoson,
2023-Ohio-3755, ¶ 18 (11th Dist.).
{¶20} Lowe also argues that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in
Drope, supra, “relied almost entirely on evidence of the defendant’s irrational behavior in
finding that the trial court should have conducted further inquiry into his competency.” In
Drope, the court found that evidence relating to changes in the defendant around the time
of trial, including a suicide attempt, warranted further inquiry on the issue of competence.
420 U.S. at 179-180. In the present matter, however, it appears that Lowe’s conduct was
consistent throughout the proceedings, as his competency was questioned even in the
PAGE 7 OF 10
Case No. 2025-L-037
municipal court and immediately following the indictment. The court could rely on the
prior evaluation and competency decision, in conjunction with its observations, to
determine that a reevaluation was not necessary nor would it change the finding on
competence. See State v. Deloney, 2025-Ohio-2458, ¶ 61 (1st Dist.) (since no prior
competency finding existed in Drope, the court had different considerations before it
whereas, in a case where a competency determination had already been made, “the court
asks whether any change or new data suggest that the defendant has lost the
competency he was previously found to have”).
Prior Competency Evaluation
{¶21} Lowe also argues that the court abused its discretion in assuming that he
remained competent because he was previously found competent, since a defendant’s
competency is “not static and may change over even a short period of time.” United States
v. Ghane, 593 F.3d 775, 779 (8th Cir. 2010).
{¶22} We do not find the trial court abused its discretion by deciding that the
previous competency evaluation and determination were still applicable. While defense
counsel argued that Lowe’s mental health had declined in the less than two months after
those were completed, it appears that Lowe’s behavior was relatively consistent
throughout the proceedings. In October 2024, the municipal court noted Lowe’s lack of
cooperation in the evaluation procedure and Dr. Rindsberg’s recommendation that staff
be informed of Lowe’s “volatility.” This lack of cooperation continued with the court and
his counsel in the following months. Further, at a November 2024 hearing, Lowe
interrupted the court, used expletives, and was removed from the court, conduct that also
occurred at various hearings. As defense counsel noted at the February competency
PAGE 8 OF 10
Case No. 2025-L-037
hearing, even at the time of the evaluation in December, Lowe made comments such as
that “he is God.” The first evaluation was conducted just a few months before the second
evaluation was requested and there is nothing in the record to demonstrate a specific
incident or occurrence that would have changed the findings made in December. We find
no error in determining that there was not a change warranting a finding that Lowe lost
competency or that another evaluation was needed to further investigate this issue. See
Deloney at ¶ 61.
{¶23} The sole assignment of error is without merit.
{¶24} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Lake County Court of
Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs to be taxed against the appellant.
ROBERT J. PATTON, P.J.,
EUGENE A. LUCCI, J.,
concur.
PAGE 9 OF 10
Case No. 2025-L-037
JUDGMENT ENTRY
For the reasons stated in the Opinion of this court, the assignment of error is
without merit. The order of this court is that the judgment of the Lake County Court of
Common Pleas is affirmed.
Costs to be taxed against appellant.
JUDGE SCOTT LYNCH
PRESIDING JUDGE ROBERT J. PATTON,
concurs
JUDGE EUGENE A. LUCCI,
concurs
THIS DOCUMENT CONSTITUTES A FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY
A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate
pursuant to Rule 27 of the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure.
PAGE 10 OF 10
Case No. 2025-L-037
