State v. Mitchell

539 P.3d 218

STATE of Kansas, Appellee,

v.Devawn T. MITCHELL, Appellant.

No. 125,254

Supreme Court of Kansas.

Oral Argument Held May 17, 2023.

Filed December 8, 2023.

Kurt P. Kerns, of Kerns Law Group, of Wichita, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant.

Carissa Brinker, assistant county attorney, argued the cause, and Marc Goodman, county attorney, and Kris W. Kobach, attorney general, were with her on the brief for appellee.

The opinion of the court was delivered by Wilson, J.:

Devawn T. Mitchell appeals from his bench trial convictions for first-degree felony murder, aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer, two counts of felony fleeing and eluding, and misdemeanor fleeing and eluding. Mitchell claims the district court erred by finding him competent to stand trial, by failing to obtain a psychological evaluation under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3429 before sentencing him, and by applying his "B" criminal history score to a nonbase offense to increase his mandatory minimum sentence. We find no error and affirm Mitchell's convictions and sentence.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The parties do not dispute the facts. In short, over the afternoon of March 18, 2021, Mitchell committed traffic infractions that led to several short, isolated pursuits by law enforcement in Emporia. The afternoon's events, which began when Mitchell swerved at a police car, tragically ended about an hour later when Mitchell's car slammed into Steven Henry's truck, killing Henry.

The State charged Mitchell with five counts over the incident, including first-degree felony murder and aggravated assault of a law enforcement officer. Mitchell's counsel filed a pretrial notice of lack of intent due to mental disease or defect and told the district court that Mitchell had an "extensive history of psychiatric illness and hospitalization." But after hearing back from the psychologist contracted by the defense to evaluate Mitchell, Mitchell's counsel withdrew the notice. Mitchell also waived his right to a jury trial.

The district court held a two-day bench trial. Mitchell presented no evidence. The district court examined each charge on the record and found Mitchell guilty on all counts.

After trial, Mitchell's counsel filed a motion to determine competency. The district court ordered a competency evaluation with Crosswinds. After Crosswinds submitted its report, the district court found Mitchell competent. We will discuss the facts surrounding this motion, including the evaluation report, in greater detail below.

The district court sentenced Mitchell to a life sentence with a minimum 554 months before parole eligibility, followed by a consecutive controlling 39-month sentence for Mitchell's remaining convictions. Mitchell directly appealed to this court.

ANALYSIS

Mitchell failed to carry his burden of proving his incompetency to stand trial.

Mitchell first argues the district court erred by finding him competent to stand trial. He focuses on one line from the Crosswinds report, arguing that it set forth conditions on his competency and that the district court failed to ensure that those conditions were met at all critical stages of the case.

Standard of review

"An appellate court applies an abuse of discretion standard when determining whether a district court made the correct decision regarding a defendant's competency to stand trial. ‘Judicial discretion can be abused in three ways: (1) if no reasonable person would have taken the view adopted by the trial court; (2) if the judicial action is based on an error of law; or (3) if the judicial action is based on an error of fact.’ [Citations omitted.]" State v. Marshall , 303 Kan. 438, 444-45, 362 P.3d 587 (2015).

"[A] party who raises the issue of competence to stand trial has the burden of going forward with the evidence, which will be measured by the preponderance of the evidence standard." State v. Cellier , 263 Kan. 54, 70, 948 P.2d 616 (1997). We have also recognized "a presumption that the defendant is competent." State v. Woods , 301 Kan. 852, 860, 348 P.3d 583 (2015).

Additional facts

Mitchell's counsel filed a posttrial motion to determine competency, which prompted the district court to order a competency evaluation with Crosswinds. After two interviews, Crosswinds issued an evaluation report diagnosing Mitchell with schizophrenia. The report documented:

"Mr. Mitchell demonstrates likely auditory hallucinations that persecute him during the day hours or instructs [sic ] him to misbehave. He has paranoia, hypersexual behaviors, social isolation, bizarre behaviors, combative and argumentative behaviors without any seeming trigger, hostility, outbursts of anger, screaming, threatening statements and actions. He appears extremely immature and lacks ability to understand consequences to his own behaviors."

Despite this diagnosis, the report concluded that Mitchell was "competent." While the report noted the "unusual" difficulty of the assessment and that "Mr. Mitchell clearly is mentally ill or has mental deficiencies that cause his significant struggles," it concluded that:

"Despite these concerns regarding his mental health or possible cognitive struggles, overall, he does possess the ability to understand the legal process and participate adequately in his own defense if given coaching and support . He does understand that he could be facing a prison sentence given his current conviction and does express a normal fear and depression that this consequence may occur. While his behavioral response seems unpredictable and could be highly inappropriate, he does demonstrate the ability to control this. Ultimately, it does appear that Mr. Mitchell is competent to stand trial and/or to participate adequately in his sentencing advocacy." (Emphasis added.)

During a short hearing, the district court accepted the competency evaluation report. After the district court gave the parties a chance to present additional evidence—which neither chose to do—the court found the defendant "competent based upon the findings in the report." It then set the matter for sentencing.

Discussion

" ‘[T]he Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the criminal prosecution of a defendant who is not competent to stand trial.’ " State v. Ford , 302 Kan. 455, 461, 353 P.3d 1143 (2015). Under this due process umbrella, Mitchell raises both procedural and substantive competency claims. Our court has explained the difference between these two claims.

"A procedural competency claim falls under K.S.A. 22-3302 and is generally based upon the district court's alleged failure to hold a competency hearing or its failure to hold an adequate competency hearing. A substantive competency claim alleges the defendant was tried and convicted while, in fact, incompetent." State v. Stewart , 306 Kan. 237, 252, 393 P.3d 1031 (2017).

In assessing a procedural competency claim, due process is satisfied if the court adheres to the statutory framework set forth in K.S.A. 2022 Supp. 22-3302. Woods , 301 Kan. at 859, 348 P.3d 583 ; State v. Barnes , 263 Kan. 249, 262-63, 948 P.2d 627 (1997). In assessing a substantive competency claim, due process is satisfied if substantial competent evidence supports a finding of actual competency. Woods , 301 Kan. at 860, 348 P.3d 583.

Mitchell's procedural competency claim is without support in the record. K.S.A. 2022 Supp. 22-3302 states:

"(a) At any time after the defendant has been charged with a crime and before pronouncement of sentence, the defendant, the defendant's counsel or the prosecuting attorney may request a determination of the defendant's competency to stand trial. If, upon the request of either party or upon the judge's own knowledge and observation, the judge before whom the case is pending finds that there is reason to believe that the defendant is incompetent to stand trial, the proceedings shall be suspended and a hearing conducted to determine the competency of the defendant.

"(b) If the defendant is charged with a felony, the hearing to determine the competency of the defendant shall be conducted by a district judge.

"(c)(1) The court shall determine the issue of competency .... The court may order a psychiatric or psychological examination of the defendant. ...

....

(4) Upon notification of the court that a defendant committed for psychiatric or psychological examination under this subsection has been found competent to stand trial, the court shall order that the defendant be returned no later than seven days after receipt of the notice for proceedings under this section. ...

"(d) If the defendant is found to be competent, the proceedings that have been suspended shall be resumed. ...

....

"(f) If proceedings are suspended and a hearing to determine the defendant's competency is ordered after the defendant is in jeopardy, the court may either order a recess or declare a mistrial.

"(g) The defendant shall be present personally at all proceedings under this section."

Here, the district court both ordered a competency evaluation and held a hearing after receiving the report from Crosswinds. The district court admitted the report into evidence without objection and offered both parties the opportunity to present additional evidence. Neither party did so. In short, the district court followed the proper procedure.

We now turn to Mitchell's substantive competency claim alleging he was tried and convicted while incompetent. In support of this claim, Mitchell argues the district court ignored the facts set forth in the Crosswinds report. He focuses on the evaluation report's qualification that "he does possess the ability to understand the legal process and participate adequately in his own defense if given coaching and support ." (Emphasis added.) Mitchell argues that the report showed he was only conditionally competent and complains that the record lacks evidence that he had "coaching and support" during all critical stages of pretrial and trial proceedings.

We disagree. Mitchell bore the...