State v. Ford

221 N.E.3d 69

STATE of Ohio, Appellee

v.Stanley O. FORD, Appellant

C.A. No. 30167

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth District, Summit County.

June 30, 2023

VICTORIA BADER and CRAIG JAQUITH, Assistant State Public Defenders, for Appellant.

SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and HEAVEN R. DIMARTINO, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

SUTTON, Presiding Judge.

{¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Stanley Ford, appeals from the judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas. For the following reasons, this Court affirms, in part, and reverses, in part, for the sole purpose of resentencing.

I.Relevant Background

{¶2} This appeal arises as a result of three fires occurring within thirteen months of each other in the same Akron neighborhood. On April 18, 2016, a fire was intentionally started at a residence located at 719 Fultz Avenue, in Akron, Ohio. Two individuals were killed in that fire, and one individual escaped. On January 23, 2017, a vehicle was set on fire at 723 Russell Avenue, in Akron, Ohio. On May 15, 2017, a fire was intentionally started at a residence located at 693 Fultz Avenue, in Akron, Ohio. Seven individuals, including five children, and the family dog were killed in that fire. The three fires occurred at addresses in very close proximity to Mr. Ford's residence located at 1370 Hillcrest Street, Akron, Ohio, and Mr. Ford's deceased mother's residence located at 1374 Hillcrest Street, Akron, Ohio.

{¶3} John Weber, an investigator and K-9 handler with the state fire marshal's office, investigated both residential fires. K-9 India, trained in accelerant or ignitable liquid detection, alerted to the presence of accelerant on the porches of both residences, and on the west side of the residence at 719 Fultz Avenue. During a search of Mr. Ford's two residences, K-9 India also alerted to a coat, black sweatpants, and containers labeled "gasoline" and "charcoal lighter fluid." Brian Peterman, an investigator with the state fire marshal's office, indicated both fires originated on the front porches. Specifically, the 719 Fultz Avenue fire originated on the "front porch of the house, on the west side."

{¶4} Video surveillance footage of the 719 Fultz Avenue fire showed an individual carrying a container igniting the fire by the front porch on the west side of the residence. Further, video surveillance footage of the 693 Fultz Avenue fire showed an individual quickly moving between 1370 Hillcrest Street, 1374 Hillcrest Street, and 693 Fultz Avenue at the time of the fire. This video footage also showed a "flash" when the 693 Fultz Avenue fire was ignited. Alarm.com records showed the security alarm at 1374 Hillcrest Street, Mr. Ford's deceased mother's residence, was disarmed using Mr. Ford's assigned code prior to the start of both fires. Several individuals in the neighborhood corroborated Mr. Ford had ongoing issues with the individuals living at 719 Fultz Avenue and 693 Fultz Avenue. One individual also indicated Mr. Ford believed God placed him in the neighborhood as its guardian angel.

{¶5} Mr. Ford was indicted on twenty-two counts of Aggravated Murder, in violation of R.C. 2903.01(A) /(B)/(C), special felonies with Death Penalty Specifications and Repeat Violent Offender Specifications, two counts of Aggravated Arson, in violation of R.C. 2909.02(A)(1), felonies of the first degree, with Repeat Violent Offender Specifications, one count of Cruelty Against Companion Animal, in violation of R.C. 959.131(C), a felony of the fifth degree, with a Repeat Violent Offender Specification, two counts of Attempted Aggravated Murder, in violation of R.C. 2903.01, felonies of the first degree, with Repeat Violent Offender Specifications, one count of Arson, in violation of R.C. 2909.03 a misdemeanor of the first degree, and one count of Aggravated Menacing, in violation of R.C. 2903.21, a misdemeanor of the first degree.

{¶6} Subsequent to a jury trial, Mr. Ford was convicted of twenty-two counts of Aggravated Murder, two counts of Attempted Aggravated Murder, and two counts of Aggravated Arson. The jury acquitted Mr. Ford of the charges of Cruelty Against Companion Animal, Arson, and Aggravated Menacing. Additionally, the jury reconvened for the sentencing phase of trial and returned verdicts finding the aggravating circumstances did not outweigh the mitigating factors beyond a reasonable doubt as to the death penalty specifications. The jury recommended life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

{¶7} After the trial court conducted an allied offenses of similar import analysis and merged certain counts, the State elected to proceed to sentencing on nine counts of Aggravated Murder and one count of Attempted Aggravated Murder. The trial court sentenced Mr. Ford to nine consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole, plus twenty-one years. The trial court further sentenced Mr. Ford to solitary confinement on the following dates for the duration of his life: January 10th, January 15th, April 18th, May 17th, December 8th and December 23rd.

{¶8} Mr. Ford now appeals raising six assignments of error for our review.

II.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I

THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT FOUND MR. FORD COMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL BASED ON EVIDENCE THAT WAS NOT RELIABLE AND CREDIBLE.

{¶9} In his first assignment of error, Mr. Ford argues the trial court abused its discretion in finding Mr. Ford competent to stand trial based upon evidence that was not reliable and credible. Specifically, Mr. Ford challenges the report and opinion issued by Twin Valley Behavioral Health finding him competent to stand trial.

{¶10} Competency determinations are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See State v. Were , 118 Ohio St.3d 448, 2008-Ohio-2762, 890 N.E.2d 263, ¶ 53. As this Court has previously stated:

[c]riminal defendants are presumed competent to stand trial. R.C. 2945.37(G). "[T]he burden is on the defendant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is not competent." [ Were at ¶ 45 ]. The question 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. Berry , 72 Ohio St.3d 354, 359 [650 N.E.2d 433] (1995), quoting Dusky v. United States , 362 U.S. 402, 402 [80 S.Ct. 788, 4 L.Ed.2d 824] (1960). "One who lacks the capacity to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him, to consult with counsel, and to assist in preparing his defense may not stand trial." State v. Smith , 9th Dist. Summit No. 27389, 2015-Ohio-2842 [2015 WL 4275640] ¶ 9, citing State v. Skatzes , 104 Ohio St.3d 195, 2004-Ohio-6391 [819 N.E.2d 215] ¶ 155. Accord R.C. 2945.401(J)(2)(a).

"A criminal defendant's competency to stand trial * * * is a question of fact." State v. Roberts , 137 Ohio St.3d 230, 2013-Ohio-4580 [998 N.E.2d 1100] ¶ 92. Deference, therefore, generally ought to be afforded to a trial court's competency determination, as "factual determinations are best left to those who see and hear what goes on in the courtroom." State v. Cowans , 87 Ohio St.3d 68, 84 [717 N.E.2d 298] (1999). Accord State v. Neyland , 139 Ohio St.3d 353, 2014-Ohio-1914 [12 N.E.3d 1112] ¶ 59 ("As with other witnesses, the trial judge heard all of the expert testimony, and it was [her] job to judge their credibility and weigh all the evidence in making [her] findings."). A trial court's competency findings "will not be disturbed when there is some reliable and credible evidence supporting those findings." Were at ¶ 46.

State v. Stutzman , 9th Dist. Wayne No. 18AP0038, 2019-Ohio-1695, 2019 WL 1998363, ¶ 12-13.

{¶11} Here, after becoming concerned regarding Mr. Ford's competency to stand trial because of his diagnosis of vascular dementia, the trial court ordered the Psycho-Diagnostic Clinic, pursuant to R.C. 2945.371(G)(3)¹ , to examine Mr. Ford in order to determine whether he "was capable of understanding the nature and object of the proceedings against him and of assisting in his defense." Dr. Arcangela S. Wood examined Mr. Ford on two occasions at the Summit County Jail for approximately five and one-half hours. Based upon her examinations of Mr. Ford, as well as her review of other documentation relating to the present case and Mr. Ford's medical history, Dr. Wood opined as follows:

With regard to Mr. Ford understanding the nature and objective of the legal proceedings against him, he currently understands his own position in these court proceedings as being the accused and having pending criminal charges. Mr. Ford understands the gravity of the criminal charges against him and possible penalties if found guilty. He also has an understanding of his legal rights such as his right to a trial, right to testify, and right to not self-incriminate. Mr. Ford understands the pleas, possible outcomes, and the concept of a plea arrangement. In addition, he knows the roles of court participants and adversarial nature of the courtroom; however, Mr. Ford has expressed paranoia that his attorneys and the judge are involved in a conspiracy with the prosecutor against him. Although he currently acknowledges that he does not have proof of his attorneys conspiring against him, the extent and conviction that he believes the judge is conspiring against him remains unclear. Furthermore, it is unclear if his ideas [ ] or possible delusions interfere with his ability to apply his knowledge in a rational way to his own situation.

With regard to Mr. Ford being capable of assisting in his defense, he has vacillated between paranoia that his attorneys are conspiring against him and not having proof that they are conspiring. Currently, he reports being able to work with them. Mr. Ford does perseverate over what was presented to the Grand Jury, and that he should be released from the Summit County Jail without having to proceed further with

...