Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Henry

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Muskingum

July 23, 2018

STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
LORI J. HENRY Defendant-Appellant

          Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CR2016-0325

          GERALD V. ANDERSON, II For Plaintiff-Appellee

          ERIC J. ALLEN For Defendant-Appellant

          Hon. John W. Wise, P.J. Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J. Judges.

          OPINION

          WISE, EARLE, J.

         {¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant, Lori J. Henry, appeals her July 26, 2017 conviction by the Court of Common Pleas of Muskingum County, Ohio. Plaintiff-Appellee is the state of Ohio.

         FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         {¶ 2} On October 20, 2016, the Muskingum County Grand Jury indicted appellant on one count of child endangering in violation of R.C. 2919.22, one count of trafficking in persons in violation of R.C. 2905.32, and one count of compelling prostitution in violation of R.C. 2907.21. Said charges arose from incidents involving appellant's eight year old child, K.H.

         {¶ 3} A jury trial commenced on June 13, 2017. The jury found appellant guilty as charged. By judgment entry filed July 26, 2017, the trial court sentenced appellant to an aggregate term of fifteen years in prison.

         {¶ 4} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for consideration. Assignments of error are as follows:

         I

         {¶ 5} "THE TRIAL COURT'S FAILURE TO HOLD A COMPETENCY HEARING WHEN ISSUES REGARDING APPELLANT'S COMPETENCY AROSE PRIOR TO TRIAL VIOLATED R.C. 2945.37 AND R.C. 2945.371 AND DENIED APPELLANT DUE PROCESS OF LAW."

         II

         {¶ 6} "THE VERDICT IN THIS CASE IS AGAINST THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE AND SHOULD BE REVERSED BECAUSE IT VIOLATES THE FIFTH, SIXTH, AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, AND ARTICLE I, SECTION 10 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF OHIO."

         III

         {¶ 7} "THE VERDICT IN THIS CASE IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AND SHOULD BE REVERSED BECAUSE IT VIOLATES THE FIFTH, SIXTH, AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, AND ARTICLE I, SECTION 10 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF OHIO."

         I

         {¶ 8} In her first assignment of error, appellant claims the trial court failed to hold a competency hearing. We disagree.

         {¶ 9} R.C. 2945.37 governs competence to stand trial. Subsection (B) states the following:

In a criminal action in a court of common pleas, a county court, or a municipal court, the court, prosecutor, or defense may raise the issue of the defendant's competence to stand trial. If the issue is raised before the trial has commenced, the court shall hold a hearing on the issue as provided in this section. If the issue is raised after the trial has commenced, the court ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.