Evan Alexander Geeslin, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Evan Alexander Geeslin appeals his conviction for conspiracy to commit sexual misconduct with a minor, a Level 5 felony. Geeslin claims that the conviction must be set aside because the trial court abused its discretion in not ordering a competency evaluation for him prior to trial.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] In August 2025, the Avon Police Department commenced an undercover “chat operation” to locate individuals who were attempting to engage in sexual activity with minors. Transcript Vol. II at 61-62. Detective Kevin Allen of the Whitestown Police Department was involved in the project, and he created the persona of “Ricky Dailey” and posted on “DoubleList,” a website where individuals can arrange for sexual meetings. The post indicated that “Ricky” was spending the week with a female friend while her parents were out of town. The word “friend” was in quotation marks. Id. at 77-78. “Ricky's” post also indicated that the friend was “always up for meeting new people and hanging out,” and that those interested should message him. Id. at 78. Geeslin responded to the post, indicating that he was 60 years old and would “love to meet.” Id. at 65-66.

[4] Detective Allen—through the “Ricky” persona—began texting and emailing Geeslin. During one of the exchanges, “Ricky” indicated to Geeslin that his friend was his niece, a fourteen-year-old cheerleader. Exhibit Vol. I at 14. Geeslin inquired whether the niece enjoyed being sexual, and “Ricky” responded that she “enjoyed exploring her sexuality.” Id. Geeslin then expressed a willingness to engage in sexual activity with her. Geeslin mentioned that she might want to use a condom, and “Ricky” suggested that Geeslin purchase some on his way to meet him and his niece.

[5] On August 13, 2025, Geeslin traveled to a residence in Lebanon that “Ricky” provided and knocked on the door. One of the police officers answered, arrested Geeslin, and seized a box of condoms that was in his possession. Immediately following the arrest, Geeslin was interviewed by police, and he admitted that he had been communicating with a person named “Ricky,” who informed him that he had a fourteen-year-old niece. Transcript Vol. II at 80-84, 87. Geeslin had messaged “Ricky” that he was prepared to have sexual intercourse and oral sex with the niece when she was ready. Geeslin also told police during the interview that he had Autism Spectrum Disorder, that he had attempted to commit suicide, and that he had engaged in electro-compulsive therapy to battle depression.

[6] On August 15, 2025, the State charged Geeslin with conspiracy to commit sexual misconduct with a minor, a Level 5 felony. Geeslin confirmed to the trial court during his initial hearing on August 18, 2025, that he understood the charge against him and the possible sentence that could be imposed if he was found guilty. Geeslin also declined appointment of legal counsel, and he indicated to the trial court that he wanted to represent himself throughout the proceedings.

[7] At a pretrial conference on October 24, 2025, Geeslin did not speak or respond to the trial court's questions. The State expressed concern about Geeslin's silence and addressed the trial court as follows:

I would like the record to reflect that you've asked him several questions. He's not responding. I don't know if he can hear you. You know, if we're going to be going to trial with a pro se defendant and he's not even acknowledging the Court the State has a little concern about either competency or something, but I just wanted the record to reflect that. That he's not even acknowledging being in the courtroom.

Transcript Vol. II at 6.

[8] In response, the trial court stated that there was nothing in its records suggesting that Geeslin was hard of hearing, and it asked Geeslin “one last time ․ can you understand me here today?” Id. When Geeslin did not respond, the court stated, “You're making eye contact with me and you appear to have a sense of what I'm saying, so you've just chosen not to speak, and that's fine. You have the right to remain silent.” Id.

[9] At a subsequent pretrial conference on November 5, 2025, Geeslin did not speak. The State again expressed concerns regarding whether Geeslin had unequivocally waived his right to counsel and whether he was competent to understand the proceedings. The trial court noted that it believed that Geeslin understood the proceedings, and it warned him of the risks of proceeding pro se. The State then indicated that it was satisfied with the advisement of rights that the trial court provided. The State further noted “that at [Geeslin's] initial hearing he did adequately respond to the Court and he speaks with officers at the jail, so we ․ understand that he can hear and understand and that he is choosing not to speak today.” Id. at 6.

[10] When Geeslin's jury trial commenced on November 17, 2025, he asked no questions during voir dire, did not strike potential jurors, and he made no opening or closing statement. Geeslin also did not question any witnesses, and he did not otherwise speak. Following the State's presentation of evidence, the jury found Geeslin guilty as charged.

[11] At the sentencing hearing on December 15, 2015, Geeslin stated to the trial court that he was “hoping to see his lawyer.” Id. at 112. The trial court noted that no attorney had been appointed because Geeslin had chosen to represent himself. Geeslin then confirmed that he was prepared to proceed, and he read a prepared statement to the trial court. The trial court sentenced Geeslin to three years of incarceration in the Indiana Department of Correction.

[12] Geeslin now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[13] Geeslin claims that the trial court abused its discretion in not ordering a competency evaluation prior to trial. Our Supreme Court has determined that to be competent at trial, a defendant must be able to understand the nature of the proceedings and be able to assist in the preparation of his defense. Timberlake v. State, 753 N.E.2d 591, 598 (Ind. 2001). The right to a competency hearing is not absolute, as a trial court is required to hold a competency hearing only if the court “has reasonable grounds for believing that the defendant” is incompetent. Ind. Code § 35-36-3-1(a); see also Cotton v. State, 753 N.E.2d 589, 590-91 (Ind. 2001). Whether reasonable grounds exist to order an evaluation of competency is a decision assigned to the sound discretion of the trial judge and is reviewed only for an abuse of discretion. Cotton, 753 N.E.2d at 591. The trial court's observations of a defendant in court can be an adequate basis for finding that a competency hearing is not necessary. See, e.g., Underwood v. State, 535 N.E.2d 507, 514 (Ind. 1989) (holding that observations of the defendant's demeanor during pretrial hearings are an adequate basis for finding that a competency hearing is not necessary).

[14] In this case, the evidence established that Geeslin adequately responded to the trial court's questions at his initial hearing. Geeslin confirmed that he understood the charge and the possible sentence, and he expressed his intention to represent himself throughout the proceedings.

[15] The trial court specifically addressed the State's concerns about Geeslin's competency at both pretrial conference hearings. At the October 24, 2025, pretrial conference, the trial court commented that Geeslin was making eye contact with the court and appeared to have a sense of what was being said, and that Geeslin just “chose not to speak” and that he had “the right to remain silent.” Id. at 6. At the subsequent hearing, the trial court noted that based upon its observations and interactions with Geeslin, Geeslin understood the proceedings and was choosing to remain silent. The State commented that it was satisfied with the advisements that the trial court provided, that Geeslin adequately responded to the trial court at the initial hearing, and that he had spoken with jail staff. Thus, the State agreed that Geeslin simply “chose not to speak.” Id. at 13. And while Geeslin told police officers during his interview that he was autistic, suicidal, and depressed, he has not identified any specific mental health issues that he believes resulted in an alleged inability to understand the charge against him or the nature of the proceedings.

[16] In light of these circumstances, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in not ordering Geeslin to undergo a competency hearing prior to trial. See, e.g., Ricketts v. State, 108 N.E.3d 416, 421 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (noting that the trial court was in the best position to make a first-hand evaluation of the defendant's mental state based on its interactions with him), trans. denied.

[17] Judgment affirmed.

Altice, Judge.

Vaidik, J. and Foley, J., concur.