Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2945 - Ohio Revised Code | Ohio Laws
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2945.39 (2026)

Expiration of the maximum time for treatment for incompetency

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
February 20, 2026
Latest Legislation:
Senate Bill 295 - 136th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A) If a defendant who is charged with an offense described in division (C)(1) or (2) of section 2945.38 of the Revised Code is found incompetent to stand trial, after the expiration of the maximum time for treatment as specified in division (C) of that section or after the court finds that there is not a substantial probability that the defendant will become competent to stand trial even if the defendant is provided with a course of treatment, one of the following applies:

(1) The court or the prosecutor may file an affidavit in probate court for civil commitment of the defendant in the manner provided in Chapter 5122. or 5123. of the Revised Code. If the court or prosecutor files an affidavit for civil commitment, the court may detain the defendant for ten days pending civil commitment. If the probate court commits the defendant subsequent to the court's or prosecutor's filing of an affidavit for civil commitment, the chief clinical officer of the entity, hospital, or facility, the managing officer of the institution, the director of the program, or the person to which the defendant is committed or admitted shall send to the prosecutor the notices described in divisions (H)(4)(a)(i) to (iii) of section 2945.38 of the Revised Code within the periods of time and under the circumstances specified in those divisions.

(2) On the motion of the prosecutor or on its own motion, the court may retain jurisdiction over the defendant if, at a hearing, the court finds both of the following by clear and convincing evidence:

(a) The defendant committed the offense with which the defendant is charged.

(b) The defendant is a person with a mental illness subject to court order or a person with an intellectual disability subject to institutionalization by court order.

(B) In making its determination under division (A)(2) of this section as to whether to retain jurisdiction over the defendant, the court may consider all relevant evidence, including, but not limited to, any relevant psychiatric, psychological, or medical testimony or reports, the acts constituting the offense charged, and any history of the defendant that is relevant to the defendant's ability to conform to the law.

(C) If the court conducts a hearing as described in division (A)(2) of this section and if the court does not make both findings described in divisions (A)(2)(a) and (b) of this section by clear and convincing evidence, the court shall dismiss the indictment, information, or complaint against the defendant. Upon the dismissal, the court shall discharge the defendant unless the court or prosecutor files an affidavit in probate court for civil commitment of the defendant pursuant to Chapter 5122. or 5123. of the Revised Code. If the court or prosecutor files an affidavit for civil commitment, the court may order that the defendant be detained for up to ten days pending the civil commitment. If the probate court commits the defendant subsequent to the court's or prosecutor's filing of an affidavit for civil commitment, the chief clinical officer of the entity, hospital, or facility, the managing officer of the institution, the director of the program, or the person to which the defendant is committed or admitted shall send to the prosecutor the notices described in divisions (H)(4)(a)(i) to (iii) of section 2945.38 of the Revised Code within the periods of time and under the circumstances specified in those divisions. A dismissal of charges under this division is not a bar to further criminal proceedings based on the same conduct.

(D)(1) If the court conducts a hearing as described in division (A)(2) of this section and if the court makes the findings described in divisions (A)(2)(a) and (b) of this section by clear and convincing evidence, the court shall commit the defendant, if determined to require mental health treatment, either to the department of mental health and addiction services for treatment at a hospital, facility, or agency as determined clinically appropriate by the department of mental health and addiction services or to another medical or psychiatric facility, as appropriate. Prior to placing the defendant, the department of mental health and addiction services shall obtain court approval for that placement. If the court conducts such a hearing and if it makes those findings by clear and convincing evidence, the court shall commit the defendant, if determined to require treatment for an intellectual disability, to a facility operated by the department of developmental disabilities, or another facility, as appropriate. In determining the place of commitment, the court shall consider the extent to which the person is a danger to the person and to others, the need for security, and the type of crime involved and shall order the least restrictive alternative available that is consistent with public safety and the welfare of the defendant. In weighing these factors, the court shall give preference to protecting public safety.

(2) If a court makes a commitment of a defendant under division (D)(1) of this section, the prosecutor shall send to the hospital, facility, or agency where the defendant is placed by the department of mental health and addiction services or to the defendant's place of commitment all reports of the defendant's current mental condition and, except as otherwise provided in this division, any other relevant information, including, but not limited to, a transcript of the hearing held pursuant to division (A)(2) of this section, copies of relevant police reports, and copies of any prior arrest and conviction records that pertain to the defendant and that the prosecutor possesses. The prosecutor shall send the reports of the defendant's current mental condition in every case of commitment, and, unless the prosecutor determines that the release of any of the other relevant information to unauthorized persons would interfere with the effective prosecution of any person or would create a substantial risk of harm to any person, the prosecutor also shall send the other relevant information. Upon admission of a defendant committed under division (D)(1) of this section, the place of commitment shall send to the board of alcohol, drug addiction, and mental health services or the community mental health board serving the county in which the charges against the defendant were filed a copy of all reports of the defendant's current mental condition and a copy of the other relevant information provided by the prosecutor under this division, including, if provided, a transcript of the hearing held pursuant to division (A)(2) of this section, the relevant police reports, and the prior arrest and conviction records that pertain to the defendant and that the prosecutor possesses.

(3) If a court makes a commitment under division (D)(1) of this section, all further proceedings shall be in accordance with sections 2945.401 and 2945.402 of the Revised Code.

Last updated March 6, 2026 at 2:32 PM

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 110 cases (23 in the last 5 years), 1965–2026 · leading case: State v. Williams, 2010 Ohio 2453 (Ohio 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Williams, 2010 Ohio 2453 (Ohio 2010). · cites it 209× “] An involuntary commitment under R.C. 2945.39 does not violate principles of equal protection or due process — Because R.”
State v. Williams, 902 N.E.2d 1042 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 95× “{¶ 1} Thonex Williams appeals from a judgment of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, which found that Williams was incompetent to stand trial and unrestorable to competency within the statutory time limits, retained jurisdiction over him under R.C. 2945.39, and ordered…”
State v. Harris (Slip Opinion), 2015 Ohio 166 (Ohio 2015). · cites it 10× “{¶ 24} In April 1980, the legislature amended R.C. 2945.39 to add subsection (D), which prohibited the use in any criminal action of any statement on the issue of guilt made by a defendant in an evaluation for his mental state at the time he committed the offense.”
State v. Weaver, 2018 Ohio 2998 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 20× “{¶9} In certain instances, R.C. 2945.39 authorizes a trial court to retain jurisdiction over an incompetent defendant and commit him to the care of a treatment facility.”
State v. Hix, 527 N.E.2d 784 (Ohio 1988). · cites it 33× “Does R.C. 2945.39 mandate that a defendant who pleads not guilty by reason of insanity be provided with an independent examiner of his choice to determine defendant’s sanity? For the following reasons, we find that a defendant has no such automatic entitlement.”
State v. Cooey, 544 N.E.2d 895 (Ohio 1989). · cites it 8× “The court ordered psychiatric examinations pursuant to R.C. 2945.39. Dr. Kathleen Quinn conducted the examination and submitted a written report, whereupon Cooey withdrew his insanity plea.”
State v. Jackson, 2021 Ohio 1884 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 42× “In May 2020, Jackson’s retained counsel filed a motion to dismiss and discharge Jackson pursuant to R.C. 2945.39. In the motion, he contended that the trial court failed to follow the statutory mandates of R.”
State v. Sims, 2022 Ohio 3365 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 29× “{¶34} Consequently, by logical extension, a person subject to commitment proceedings under R.C. 2945.39 may waive assistance of counsel.”
State v. Dhimal (Ohio Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 36× “The court therefore issued an order retaining jurisdiction over him under R.C. 2945.39. Dhimal appeals from that order, arguing that there was insufficient evidence for the court to determine that he possessed the mens rea necessary to prove burglary and kidnapping.”
State v. Reynolds, 550 N.E.2d 490 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 4× “Reynolds also contends that the trial court erroneously permitted statements made by Reynolds in the course of a psychological examination pursuant to R.C. 2945.39 to be used against him on the issue of guilt.”
State v. Decker, 2017 Ohio 4266 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 7× “" R.C. 2945.39(A)(2); Licking & Knox at ¶ 5.”
State v. Baird, 2020 Ohio 2717 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 6× “38(H), which requires the trial court to discharge the offender if the defendant cannot be restored to competency within the statutory time frame unless the court retains jurisdiction under R.C. 2945.39, if applicable, or an affidavit is filed in the probate court for the civil…”
Show all 110 citing cases →
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2945.39(A) — 21 cases
State v. Hix, 527 N.E.2d 784 (Ohio 1988). “Does R.C. 2945.39 mandate that a defendant who pleads not guilty by reason of insanity be provided with an independent examiner of his choice to determine defendant’s sanity? For the following reasons, we find that a defendant has no such automatic entitlement.”
State v. Williams, 2010 Ohio 2453 (Ohio 2010). “] An involuntary commitment under R.C. 2945.39 does not violate principles of equal protection or due process — Because R.”
State v. White, 709 N.E.2d 140 (Ohio 1999).
State v. Wilson, 454 N.E.2d 1348 (Ohio Ct. App. 1982).
State v. White, 1999 Ohio 281 (Ohio 1999).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2945.39(A)(1) — 7 cases
State v. Williams, 2010 Ohio 2453 (Ohio 2010). “] An involuntary commitment under R.C. 2945.39 does not violate principles of equal protection or due process — Because R.”
State v. Weaver, 2018 Ohio 2998 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). “{¶9} In certain instances, R.C. 2945.39 authorizes a trial court to retain jurisdiction over an incompetent defendant and commit him to the care of a treatment facility.”
State v. Baird, 2020 Ohio 2717 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “38(H), which requires the trial court to discharge the offender if the defendant cannot be restored to competency within the statutory time frame unless the court retains jurisdiction under R.C. 2945.39, if applicable, or an affidavit is filed in the probate court for the civil…”
State v. Coffman, 2020 Ohio 6855 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Dhimal (Ohio Ct. App. 2026). “The court therefore issued an order retaining jurisdiction over him under R.C. 2945.39. Dhimal appeals from that order, arguing that there was insufficient evidence for the court to determine that he possessed the mens rea necessary to prove burglary and kidnapping.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2945.39(A)(2) — 28 cases
State v. Williams, 2010 Ohio 2453 (Ohio 2010). “] An involuntary commitment under R.C. 2945.39 does not violate principles of equal protection or due process — Because R.”
State v. Jackson, 2021 Ohio 1884 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “In May 2020, Jackson’s retained counsel filed a motion to dismiss and discharge Jackson pursuant to R.C. 2945.39. In the motion, he contended that the trial court failed to follow the statutory mandates of R.”
State v. Craig (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 455 (Ohio 2020).
State v. Sims, 2022 Ohio 3365 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “{¶34} Consequently, by logical extension, a person subject to commitment proceedings under R.C. 2945.39 may waive assistance of counsel.”
State v. Adbuleh, 2021 Ohio 4495 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2945.39(A)(2)(A) — 1 case
State v. Coffman, 2020 Ohio 6855 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2945.39(A)(2)(B) — 1 case
State v. Coffman, 2020 Ohio 6855 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2945.39(A)(2)(a) — 20 cases
State v. Williams, 2010 Ohio 2453 (Ohio 2010). “] An involuntary commitment under R.C. 2945.39 does not violate principles of equal protection or due process — Because R.”
State v. Weaver, 2018 Ohio 2998 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). “{¶9} In certain instances, R.C. 2945.39 authorizes a trial court to retain jurisdiction over an incompetent defendant and commit him to the care of a treatment facility.”
State v. Decker, 2017 Ohio 4266 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “" R.C. 2945.39(A)(2); Licking & Knox at ¶ 5.”
State v. Sims, 2022 Ohio 3365 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “{¶34} Consequently, by logical extension, a person subject to commitment proceedings under R.C. 2945.39 may waive assistance of counsel.”
State v. Jackson, 2021 Ohio 1884 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “In May 2020, Jackson’s retained counsel filed a motion to dismiss and discharge Jackson pursuant to R.C. 2945.39. In the motion, he contended that the trial court failed to follow the statutory mandates of R.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2945.39(A)(2)(b) — 13 cases
State v. Weaver, 2018 Ohio 2998 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). “{¶9} In certain instances, R.C. 2945.39 authorizes a trial court to retain jurisdiction over an incompetent defendant and commit him to the care of a treatment facility.”
State v. Williams, 2010 Ohio 2453 (Ohio 2010). “] An involuntary commitment under R.C. 2945.39 does not violate principles of equal protection or due process — Because R.”
State v. Decker, 2017 Ohio 4266 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “" R.C. 2945.39(A)(2); Licking & Knox at ¶ 5.”
State v. Sims, 2022 Ohio 3365 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “{¶34} Consequently, by logical extension, a person subject to commitment proceedings under R.C. 2945.39 may waive assistance of counsel.”
State v. Williams, 902 N.E.2d 1042 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008). “{¶ 1} Thonex Williams appeals from a judgment of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, which found that Williams was incompetent to stand trial and unrestorable to competency within the statutory time limits, retained jurisdiction over him under R.C. 2945.39, and ordered…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2945.39(A)(3) — 2 cases
State v. Hill, 653 N.E.2d 271 (Ohio 1995).
State v. Hill, 1995 Ohio 287 (Ohio 1995).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2945.39(B) — 11 cases
State v. Weaver, 2018 Ohio 2998 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). “{¶9} In certain instances, R.C. 2945.39 authorizes a trial court to retain jurisdiction over an incompetent defendant and commit him to the care of a treatment facility.”
State v. Sims, 2022 Ohio 3365 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “{¶34} Consequently, by logical extension, a person subject to commitment proceedings under R.C. 2945.39 may waive assistance of counsel.”
State v. Decker, 2017 Ohio 4266 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “" R.C. 2945.39(A)(2); Licking & Knox at ¶ 5.”
State v. McCain, 2019 Ohio 4392 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019).
State v. Jackson, 2021 Ohio 1884 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “In May 2020, Jackson’s retained counsel filed a motion to dismiss and discharge Jackson pursuant to R.C. 2945.39. In the motion, he contended that the trial court failed to follow the statutory mandates of R.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2945.39(C) — 17 cases
State v. Hix, 527 N.E.2d 784 (Ohio 1988). “Does R.C. 2945.39 mandate that a defendant who pleads not guilty by reason of insanity be provided with an independent examiner of his choice to determine defendant’s sanity? For the following reasons, we find that a defendant has no such automatic entitlement.”
State v. Williams, 2010 Ohio 2453 (Ohio 2010). “] An involuntary commitment under R.C. 2945.39 does not violate principles of equal protection or due process — Because R.”
State v. Jackson, 2021 Ohio 1884 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “In May 2020, Jackson’s retained counsel filed a motion to dismiss and discharge Jackson pursuant to R.C. 2945.39. In the motion, he contended that the trial court failed to follow the statutory mandates of R.”
State v. Hill, 653 N.E.2d 271 (Ohio 1995).
State v. Sims, 2022 Ohio 3365 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “{¶34} Consequently, by logical extension, a person subject to commitment proceedings under R.C. 2945.39 may waive assistance of counsel.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2945.39(D) — 17 cases
State v. Cooey, 544 N.E.2d 895 (Ohio 1989). “The court ordered psychiatric examinations pursuant to R.C. 2945.39. Dr. Kathleen Quinn conducted the examination and submitted a written report, whereupon Cooey withdrew his insanity plea.”
State v. Harris (Slip Opinion), 2015 Ohio 166 (Ohio 2015). “{¶ 24} In April 1980, the legislature amended R.C. 2945.39 to add subsection (D), which prohibited the use in any criminal action of any statement on the issue of guilt made by a defendant in an evaluation for his mental state at the time he committed the offense.”
Richard Cooey v. Ralph Coyle, Warden, 289 F.3d 882 (6th Cir. 2002).
State v. Hancock, 840 N.E.2d 1032 (Ohio 2006).
State v. White, 709 N.E.2d 140 (Ohio 1999).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2945.39(D)(1) — 17 cases
State v. Williams, 2010 Ohio 2453 (Ohio 2010). “] An involuntary commitment under R.C. 2945.39 does not violate principles of equal protection or due process — Because R.”
State v. Weaver, 2018 Ohio 2998 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). “{¶9} In certain instances, R.C. 2945.39 authorizes a trial court to retain jurisdiction over an incompetent defendant and commit him to the care of a treatment facility.”
State v. Sims, 2022 Ohio 3365 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “{¶34} Consequently, by logical extension, a person subject to commitment proceedings under R.C. 2945.39 may waive assistance of counsel.”
State v. Jackson, 2021 Ohio 1884 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “In May 2020, Jackson’s retained counsel filed a motion to dismiss and discharge Jackson pursuant to R.C. 2945.39. In the motion, he contended that the trial court failed to follow the statutory mandates of R.”
State v. Williams, 902 N.E.2d 1042 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008). “{¶ 1} Thonex Williams appeals from a judgment of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, which found that Williams was incompetent to stand trial and unrestorable to competency within the statutory time limits, retained jurisdiction over him under R.C. 2945.39, and ordered…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2945.39(D)(2) — 1 case
State v. Decker, 2020 Ohio 1464 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2945.39(D)(3) — 7 cases
State v. Williams, 2010 Ohio 2453 (Ohio 2010). “] An involuntary commitment under R.C. 2945.39 does not violate principles of equal protection or due process — Because R.”
State v. Sims, 2022 Ohio 3365 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “{¶34} Consequently, by logical extension, a person subject to commitment proceedings under R.C. 2945.39 may waive assistance of counsel.”
State v. Jackson, 2021 Ohio 1884 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “In May 2020, Jackson’s retained counsel filed a motion to dismiss and discharge Jackson pursuant to R.C. 2945.39. In the motion, he contended that the trial court failed to follow the statutory mandates of R.”
State v. McVay, 2018 Ohio 4683 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
State v. Blackman, 2024 Ohio 5249 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.