Public defenders tell Senate panel extending competency-restoration timeline to five years risks due-process and capacity problems

Opponents of Senate Bill 295 told the Senate Judiciary Committee the bill's proposed increase of the competency-restoration timeline from one year to five years for elevated felonies risks due-process problems, retroactivity issues and significant strain on state mental-health facilities.

Zach Miller, legislative officer for the Ohio Public Defender's Office, testified that while the office supports provisions to toll or restart the restoration timeline and to require treatment facilities to notify courts when a defendant refuses treatment, a blanket change from one to five years is “a substantial and concerning expansion.” He testified the extension could result in people being held involuntarily for up to five years without conviction and would likely prompt constitutional litigation over retroactive application.

Miller said the bill provides no funding to expand bed capacity and cited Department of Behavioral Health statistics showing state hospitals already operate at high capacity for forensic care. “This bill will lead to situations where individuals are held involuntarily for 5 years,” he said, and urged the committee to narrow the measure to address only cases where tolling is necessary.

Colin Sweeney, chief public defender for Cuyahoga County, and Chris Julian, supervising attorney for the county's mental-health unit, echoed those concerns. Julian described a client he identified as “Mr. Jackson,” who was found unrestorable after nearly five years in state care, and said specialized forensic beds are limited; he cited the Timothy Maritz forensic unit as a single maximum-security unit with about 52 beds serving all of Ohio's counties. Julian warned that leaving restoration beds occupied for years by a small number of unrestorable patients would lengthen waits for defendants who need restoration services.

Committee members asked witnesses whether the system's built-in tools — continuing jurisdiction, tolling and court oversight — already address the problem proponents identified in the Hardy case. Witnesses agreed the notice and tolling changes in the bill are helpful but said the five-year maximum is overly broad and would invite litigation if applied retroactively. The clerk also noted written proponent testimony from the Cleveland Police Patrolmen's Association.

Vice Chair Reynolds later moved to favorably report SB295 to the Committee on Rules and Reference; the roll was called and the chair announced the bill was favorably reported with sufficient votes. The committee recorded that this stood as the third hearing on SB295.