The Eighth Appellate District Court of Ohio has affirmed the conviction of Oswald Pubill, Jr. for vandalism, rejecting his claim that the trial court erred by proceeding to trial without first determining his competency. The court’s decision, released on November 20, 2025, highlights a case where the defendant’s disruptive and uncooperative behavior was deemed volitional, not a result of mental incompetence.
The Incident and the Charges
The case stems from an incident on December 8, 2023, at the Federal Reserve Bank in Cleveland. Pubill was observed swinging a padlock inside a sock at an emergency door fitted with ballistic glass. The act, captured by security cameras, caused damage requiring the glass to be replaced at a significant cost. Pubill was arrested at the scene.
A Cuyahoga County Grand Jury indicted Pubill on December 13, 2023, on one count of vandalism, a fifth-degree felony. After posting bond, Pubill failed to appear for a scheduled hearing and was later apprehended.
The Competency Issue
The central issue in the appeal revolved around Pubill’s competency to stand trial. The trial court had addressed this issue in a hearing on October 17, 2024, reviewing his behavior in jail and his history of competency evaluations. The court referenced a 2022 competency report from Northcoast Behavioral Health (NBH) and previous findings of competence in earlier cases.
Throughout the proceedings, Pubill demonstrated uncooperative behavior, including refusing to cooperate with jail staff and refusing to meet with his attorney. The trial court, after reviewing the evidence, concluded that Pubill’s behavior was volitional and not indicative of incompetence.
The Trial Court’s Findings
The trial court meticulously reviewed Pubill’s history of competency evaluations. It noted that he had been found competent in multiple prior cases, including evaluations in 2012, 2016, 2019, and 2022. The court emphasized that the 2022 NBH report indicated that Pubill was organized in his thinking and understood the nature of the legal proceedings.
The court also cited Pubill’s own statements, including his awareness of the court proceedings, his ability to advocate for his needs, and his interactions with other inmates. The court found that Pubill’s disruptive behavior, such as refusing to dress for hearings and making disruptive noises in the courtroom, was a deliberate attempt to obstruct the process.
The Appellate Court’s Decision
The appellate court upheld the trial court’s decision, finding no error in proceeding to trial without a new competency evaluation. The court emphasized that a defendant is presumed competent and that it is their burden to prove otherwise. The court also noted that the trial court’s finding of competency is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard, and deference is given to the trial court’s observations.
The appellate court found that the record contained ample evidence of Pubill’s competency, including his history of being found competent, his understanding of the proceedings, and his volitional choices to be disruptive. The court also rejected Pubill’s argument that there was a conflict between the 2020 and 2022 evaluations, clarifying that the 2020 findings were part of the 2022 report.
The court also noted that Pubill had a history of refusing to participate in competency evaluations, and that he did not present any new evidence or arguments to suggest that his behavior was a result of incompetence. The court concluded that the trial court was not required to order a new evaluation and that its decision to proceed with the trial was supported by the record.
Key Legal Principles
The court’s decision underscores several key legal principles:
* Presumption of Competency: A defendant is presumed competent to stand trial.
* Burden of Proof: The defendant bears the burden of proving incompetence by a preponderance of the evidence.
* Volitional Behavior: Disruptive behavior that is chosen by the defendant does not necessarily equate to incompetence.
* Discretion of the Court: The trial court has discretion in determining whether to order a new competency evaluation.
The Outcome
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, upholding Pubill’s conviction for vandalism. The court ordered that the appellee (the state) recover costs. The defendant’s bail pending appeal was terminated, and the case was remanded to the trial court for execution of the sentence.