Commonwealth v. Sinclair

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Order Entered November 19, 2020 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0001771-2017

BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., NICHOLS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. ^[*]

MEMORANDUM

NICHOLS, J.

The Commonwealth appeals from the order^[1] dismissing the charges of aggravated assault, simple assault, possessing an instrument of crime, and

recklessly endangering another person^[2] that were filed against Kwabena Sinclair (Appellee). The Commonwealth contends that the Mental Health Court (MHC) erred in applying the extreme measure of dismissing the charges and failed to hold a competency hearing. In addition, the Commonwealth argues that the MHC did not have jurisdiction to dismiss the case pursuant to 50 P.S. § 7102 of the Mental Health Procedures Act (MHPA).^[3] Appellee argues that the Commonwealth's appellate issues are waived because they were not raised before the MHC. We vacate and remand with instructions.

The MHC summarized the relevant facts and procedural history of this matter as follows:

The instant matter stems from a January 31, 2017, incident where [Appellee] was arrested and accused of shooting his 71-year-old mother, Constance Rivers, multiple times in the arm and chest with a pellet gun causing injuries that required medical treatment. On June 27, 2017, [Appellee] was found incompetent and committed for thirty (30) days to prison health services wing. [Appellee] was accepted into Mental Health Court and on August 3, 2017, [Appellee] was found not competent to proceed and committed to Norristown State Hospital for another sixty (60) days which began his long stint with the Mental Health Court program

On June 28, 2018, the Honorable Sheila Woods-Skipper vacated [Appellee's] Norristown State Hospital commitment, and [Appellee] was recommitted as not competent under [50 P.S. § 7305 (section 305) of the MHPA] to placement for up to 180 days. [Appellee's] bail modification motion was granted and changed from monetary bail to Sign Own Bond in the amount of $35, 000. [Appellee] was paroled on July 5, 2018, and transported to

Southwest Nu Stop Housing of Change, located at 4807 Germantown Avenue, Philadelphia, PA.

[Appellee] remained in compliance with the conditions of the program, however, following the death of his mother, from cancer not related to the incident, [Appellee's] compliance deteriorated. At the March 21, 2019, status listing, [Appellee] arrived late and revealed that his mother had passed away. On April 4, 2019, [Appellee] was found to not be medication compliant and experiencing behavioral problems at his placement. On May 9, 2019, [Appellee] was found not compliant, bail was reinstated at $35, 000 monetary and [Appellee] was taken into custody.

On August 13, 2019, [Appellee] was found competent but in need of treatment and was committed to the Detention Center Forensic Unit for thirty (30) days. On September 10, 2019, [Appellee] was found not competent to proceed by agreement and committed for sixty (60) days to the Detention Center Forensic Unit, pending additional placement. On January 14, 2020, having secured new placement, [Appellee's] bail was modified to Sign Own Bond in the amount of $35, 000, and he was transported to Guadenzia New Outlooks in Philadelphia, PA, when bed space became available. On February 11, 2020, [Appellee] was found to be in compliance with the Mental Health Court treatment plan.

On June 18, 2020, the [Appellee] was once again found in compliance with the treatment plan and was given permission to move in with his girlfriend to begin to live independently while maintaining compliance with Mental Health Court treatment plan. On July 23, 2020, [Appellee] was still living independently at a new address because of bug and rodent infestations in the previous two residences but still compliant and in contact with his case manager. At the October 10, 2020 hearing it was reported that [Appellee] had no new arrests and was engaged in mental health treatment but was not receiving case management and it was not apparent where [Appellee] was currently residing.

At the November 19, 2020 hearing defense counsel reported that [Appellee's] location was unknown and they were unable to get in contact with [Appellee]. [Appellee] had not been receiving case management, and it was reported by [Appellee's] peer specialist that contact with [Appellee] has been sporadic, he was not focused and most likely not medication compliant. It was also reported by the Commonwealth that [Appellee] has had no new arrests.

[Appellee] had moved from his previously known address, and his peer specialist did not know his current whereabouts.

This court weighed the option of issuing a bench warrant for [Appellee] but reconsidered following a discussion with defense counsel and the Commonwealth. The complaining witness, the [Appellee's] mother, had passed away from cancer not related to the incident, and the other eyewitness, the decedent's brother and [Appellee's] uncle, was last in contact with the Commonwealth in November of 2019. Since, the court had released [Appellee] to independent living, he had incurred no new arrests. There was no record of a current address for [Appellee] so he did not have service for the hearing. The culmination of these circumstances prompted defense counsel to move for a discharge stating that she saw no reason to really continue to follow this case anymore.

Based on the circumstances, this court discharged the case against [Appellee on November 19, 2020, and] the Commonwealth objected.

On November 24, 2020, the Commonwealth filed a Motion to Reconsider, which this court denied on December 17, 2020.

MHC Op., 2/16/21, at 1-3 (record citations and quotation marks omitted, and some formatting altered). On December 17, 2020, the Commonwealth filed a timely notice of appeal. Both the MHC and the Commonwealth complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

On appeal, the Commonwealth raises the following issue:

Did the [MHC] err by dismissing charges of aggravated and simple assault, possessing an instrument of crime, and recklessly endangering another person at a status listing concerning [Appellee's] mental health treatment?

Commonwealth's Brief at 4.

We first address Appellee's claim that the Commonwealth waived its issue on appeal by failing to raise it before the MHC or in its Rule 1925(b)

statement. Appellee's Brief at 14-16. Appellee argues that the Commonwealth's Rule 1925(b) statement was misleading and prevented the MHC from addressing the correct issue in its Rule 1925(a) opinion. Id. at 15-16. We disagree.

As noted above, when the MHC dismissed the charges, the Commonwealth objected, and it subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration. It is undisputed that Appellee was repeatedly determined to be incompetent to stand trial. Under the MHPA, dismissal of criminal charges against an individual who was determined to be incompetent implicates 50 P.S. § 7403(e). See 50 P.S. §§ 7401-7407 (Determinations Affecting those Charged with Crime or Under Sentence). In the motion for reconsideration, the Commonwealth asserted that the MHC erred in dismissing the charges, and it recited the facts underlying the charges against Appellee, his dangerous conduct, and his continued need for mental health treatment. Mot. for Reconsideration, 11/24/20, at 1-4. We find that the issue the Commonwealth presents on appeal and the application of Section 7403(e) were raised in the trial court.

Additionally, in its Rule 1925(b) statement, the Commonwealth raised the following issue, which is nearly identical to the issue raised in its appellate brief: "Did the [MHC] err by dismissing, sua sponte, charges of aggravated and simple assault, possessing an instrument of crime, and recklessly endangering another person at a status listing concerning [Appellee's] mental health treatment?" Commonwealth's Rule 1925(b) Statement, 1/19/21. It is

apparent from the record and the circumstances of this case that the MHC's dismissal of the charges implicated Section 7403(e), because it is the section of the MHPA that provides for...