Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 01-30-2021
Case Style:
STATE OF OHIO v. WANDA YOUNG
Case Number: 108868
Judge: EILEEN T. GALLAGHER
Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
Plaintiff's Attorney: Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
Attorney, and Callista Plemel, Assistant Prosecuting
Attorney
Defendant's Attorney:
OR
Just Call 855-853-4800 for Free Help Finding a Lawyer Help You.
Description:
Cleveland, Ohio - Criminal defense attorney represented with a two counts of aggravated burglary, two counts of assault, two counts of abduction, one count of disrupting public services, and one count of burglary.
On April 1, 2019, Cleveland police responded to a call about a break-in
at a home on Delrey Avenue. Police observed a smashed window with large amounts
of blood on the glass. Upon entering the home, the police followed the sound of
noises coming from an upstairs bedroom where they found Young screaming at a
90-year old woman and her adult son. Young was bleeding profusely and the police
observed blood all over the house. The police recognized that Young “was clearly in
a crisis situation” and secured her. (Tr. 10.)
Young was subsequently charged with two counts of aggravated
burglary in violation of R.C. 2911.11(A)(1), two counts of assault in violation of R.C.
issued upon reconsideration, is the court’s journalized decision in this appeal. See App.R.
22(C); see also S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.01.
2903.13(A), two counts of abduction in violation of R.C. 2905.02(A)(2), one count
of disrupting public services in violation of R.C. 2909.04(A)(3), and one count of
burglary in violation of R.C. 2911.12(A)(2). Young pleaded not guilty by reason of
insanity.
Following her arrest, Young was evaluated by Dr. Cathleen CernySuelzer, a psychiatrist in the court psychiatric clinic. Dr. Cerny-Suelzer determined
that Young was suffering from bipolar I disorder with psychotic features and that
she recently experienced a manic episode with mixed features. Dr. Cerny-Suelzer
opined that, as a result of Young’s serious mental illness, she did not “know the
wrongfulness of her actions” when she committed the acts giving rise to this case.
Based on Dr. Cerny-Suelzer’s expert opinions, the court found that
Young proved, by the preponderance of the evidence, that she suffered from a severe
mental disease that so impaired her reason that she was unable to know the
wrongfulness of her actions at the time she committed the acts charged in the
indictment. Therefore, the court found Young not guilty by reason of insanity and
ordered Young to be evaluated to determine whether Young should be subject to
hospitalization pursuant to R.C. 2945.40.
Dr. Cerny-Suelzer reevaluated Young pursuant to the court’s order. At
a subsequent hearing, the state and defense counsel stipulated to Dr. CernySuelzer’s finding that Young suffered from “a substantial disorder of thought, mood,
and perception” that required hospitalization. (Tr. 16.) Based on Dr. CernySuelzer’s report and the stipulations of counsel, the court found that Young had a
mental disorder requiring hospitalization, with the goal of conditional release back
into the community. At the civil commitment hearing, Young explained that she had
been off her medications for ten months. She believed that she and her children
were the victims of criminal activity and that she went to a neighbor’s house to call
for help “but somewhere along the way [her] synapses got crossed, or [she] snapped
or something * * *” and she was “not sure how [she] went from wanting to call for
help to breaking into [the victim’s] home looking for [her] kids.” (Tr. 20-21.) Young
also stated that since being back on her medications, she was “feeling a lot better.”
(Tr. 8.)
With respect to hospitalization, the court stated, in relevant part:
In Ms. Young’s case, Count 1 is an aggravated burglary, a felony of the
first degree. The possible prison term for that sentence — sorry, for
that crime is 3 to 11 years, which makes the maximum amount of time
she would be subject to the court’s jurisdiction 11 years. It is this Court’s
interpretation that the tail or indefinite term that comes into play under
Reagan Tokes Law would not apply to cases of not guilty by reason of
insanity as the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction would be
the entity that would keep Ms. Young incarcerated if she were in fact in
prison. Ms. Young’s case does not implicate the Department of
Rehabilitation and Corrections [sic]. So it is this Court’s interpretation
after research that the maximum amount of time Ms. Young can be
placed under the Court’s jurisdiction is 11 years.
(Tr. 22.) The state did not object to the court’s calculation of its maximum term of
supervision of Young under the Reagan Tokes Law. Nevertheless, the state now
challenges the court’s final calculation of its term of supervision in its sole
assignment of error.
II. Law and Analysis
In its sole assignment of error, the state argues the trial court erred in
determining the court’s jurisdiction to supervise Young terminated after 11 years.
The state contends that under R.C. 2945.401(J), as amended by the Reagan Tokes
Act, Am.Sub.S.B. No. 201, 2018 Ohio Laws 157, the trial court should have found it
had jurisdiction to supervise Young for an indefinite period of between 11 and 16 and
one-half years, as a result of Young’s not guilty by reason of insanity plea to two
charges of aggravated burglary.
The state failed to object to the trial court’s calculation of its term of
supervision. The failure to raise an issue in the trial court generally forfeits the issue
on appeal. Broadview Hts. v. Misencik, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100196, 2014-Ohio1518, ¶ 19.
Young argues the issue is simply forfeited, and the trial court’s
judgment should be affirmed. The state, on the other hand, argues that Young’s
commitment to the hospital involves a criminal sentence that is contrary to law and
is, therefore, reviewable as a void sentence. Indeed, void sentences are always
reviewable. State v. Harper, 160 Ohio St.3d 480, 2020-Ohio-2913, 159 N.E.3d 248,
¶ 18. Alternatively, the state argues we can review the trial court’s judgment for plain
error since it is within the appellate court’s discretion to consider forfeited issues for
plain error. Hill v. Urbana, 79 Ohio St.3d 130, 133-134, 679 N.E.2d 1109 (1997),
citing In re M.D., 38 Ohio St.3d 149, 527 N.E.2d 286 (1988), syllabus.
Despite the state’s assertion that Young’s “sentence” is void, the trial
court’s jurisdiction to supervise the rehabilitation of a person acquitted of a crime
by reason of insanity is civil in nature, not criminal. State v. Z.J., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga
No. 87912, 2007-Ohio-552, ¶ 18. “A finding of not guilty by reason of insanity is not
a criminal conviction.” Id., citing State v. Tuomala, 104 Ohio St.3d 93, 2004-Ohio6239, 18 N.E.2d 272. Therefore, civil commitments due to not guilty by reason of
insanity verdicts are not the same as criminal sentences.
Furthermore, the state has failed to present a proper plain error
argument. Indeed, the words “plain error” are never mentioned in the state’s merit
brief. Although the state mentions plain error in its reply brief, it cites Crim.R. 52(B)
without any plain error analysis. And since civil commitments due to not guilty by
insanity verdicts are civil in nature, Crim.R. 52(B) is inapplicable.
Plain error in civil cases is limited to those “extremely rare cases” in
which “exceptional circumstances require its application to prevent a manifest
miscarriage of justice, and where the error complained of, if left uncorrected, would
have a materially adverse effect on the character of, and public confidence in, judicial
proceedings.” Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116, 121, 679 N.E.2d 1099 (1997).
Indeed, “[t]he plain error doctrine should never be applied to reverse a civil
judgment simply because a reviewing court disagrees with the result obtained in the
trial court, or to allow litigation of issues which could easily have been raised and
determined in the initial trial.” Id. Thus, to reverse on plain error, the error must
be both apparent on the face of the record and prejudicial to the appellant. Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Lundeen, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 107184, 2020-Ohio-28, ¶ 12.
The state argues the trial court erred in concluding that its jurisdiction
to supervise Young was limited to a maximum of 11 years. The state contends the
court had jurisdiction to supervise Young in the hospital for up to 16 and one-half
years under the Reagan Tokes Act.
R.C. 2945.401 governs the trial court’s jurisdiction to supervise the
rehabilitation of individuals found not guilty by reason of insanity. As relevant here,
R.C. 2945.401(A) provides, in relevant part:
[A] person found not guilty by reason of insanity and committed
pursuant to section 2945.40 of the Revised Code shall remain subject
to the jurisdiction of the trial court pursuant to that commitment, and
to the provisions of this section, until the final termination of the
commitment as described in division (J)(1) of this section. * * *
R.C. 2945.401(J)(1) provides that a person found guilty by reason of
insanity “continues to be under the jurisdiction of the trial court until the final
termination of the commitment.” Pursuant to R.C. 2945.401(J)(1), the commitment
of a person found not guilty by reason of insanity terminates upon the earlier of one
of the following:
(a) The defendant or person no longer is a mentally ill person subject
to court order or a person with an intellectual disability subject to
institutionalization by court order, as determined by the trial court;
(b) The expiration of the maximum prison term or term of
imprisonment that the defendant or person could have received if the
defendant or person had been convicted of the most serious offense
with which the defendant or person is charged or in relation to which
the defendant or person was found not guilty by reason of insanity;
(c) The trial court enters an order terminating the commitment under
the circumstances described in division (J)(2)(a)(ii) of this section.
[Governing competency to stand trial].
The issue in this case concerns subsection (b), which provides that the
trial court’s continuing jurisdiction to supervise an individual, found not guilty by
reason of insanity, extends through the maximum prison term the individual could
have received if he or she had been found guilty of the most serious offense with
which the individual was charged. In Young’s case, the most serious offense charged
was aggravated burglary, in violation of R.C. 2911.11(B), which is a first-degree
felony.
Prior to March 22, 2019, first-degree felonies were punishable by a
definite prison term of 3 to 11 years, in one-year increments. R.C. 2929.14(A)(1)(b).
However, on March 22, 2019, the Ohio legislature enacted the Reagan Tokes Act,
which changed the terms of felony sentencing for qualifying felonies of the first or
second degree. See R.C. 2929.14. Under the Reagan Tokes Act, qualifying first- and
second-degree felonies committed on or after March 22, 2019, are now subject to
the imposition of indefinite sentences. Under R.C. 2929.14, the sentencing judge
must select the minimum prison term from within the currently established range
for the particular felony and a “maximum term” of an additional fifty percent of the
imposed term. R.C. 2929.144(B).
The Reagan Tokes Act establishes a presumptive release date at the
end of the minimum term imposed. R.C. 2967.271(B). However, the Ohio
Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“ODRC”) may rebut that
presumption and keep the offender in prison for an additional period not to exceed
the maximum term imposed by the sentencing judge, depending on the inmate’s
behavior in prison. R.C. 2967.271(C).
Young committed the acts giving rise to this case on April 1, 2019, and
she was charged with two counts of aggravated burglary, both qualifying felonies of
the first degree. R.C. 2929.14 governs basic prison terms for first-degree felonies
and states, in relevant part:
For a felony of the first degree committed on or after the effective date
of this amendment, the prison term shall be an indefinite prison term
with a stated minimum term selected by the court of three, four, five,
six, seven, eight, nine, ten, or eleven years and a maximum term that is
determined pursuant to section 2929.144 of the Revised Code[.]
R.C. 2929.14(A). Thus, under the Reagan Tokes Act, the maximum prison term
Young could have received for her most serious offense was 11 years, plus fifty
percent of the term, i.e., an additional five and one-half years, for a maximum
indefinite prison term of 16 and one-half years, had she been convicted of the most
serious offense for which she was charged. But Young was found not guilty by reason
of insanity.
Although Young was not convicted of a crime, the trial court was
nevertheless required to determine the maximum term of imprisonment Young
would have been subjected to if she had been found guilty. The court concluded that
it could supervise Young’s hospitalization for a maximum of 11 years because any
term of incarceration beyond 11 years could only be imposed by the ODRC as a result
of misbehavior in prison. The court reasoned that it was impossible for ODRC to
review her conduct in prison given that she was not in prison. There is nothing in
the court’s rationale suggesting a miscarriage of justice or that there was an error
that, if left uncorrected, would have a material adverse effect of the character of, and
the public confidence in, the judicial proceedings. This is particularly true since the
trial court may terminate its supervision whenever Young no longer requires
hospitalization, which is likely to be long before reaching the maximum period of
supervision, whether that time period is 11 years or 16 and one-half years. Therefore,
the state has failed to demonstrate that the claimed error “seriously affects the basic
fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial process * * * .” Goldfuss, 79
Ohio St.3d 116, at 121, 679 N.E.2d 1099. In other words, the state has failed to
establish a claim for plain error.
The state’s sole assignment of error is overruled.
Outcome: Judgment affirmed.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: