State v. Satterfield

1

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MARCUS ANTONIO SATTERFIELD

No. COA23-857

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

September 3, 2024

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Heard in the Court of Appeals 11 June 2024.

Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 15 November 2022 by Judge Edwin G. Wilson, Jr., in Person County Superior Court. Nos 21 CRS 50163, 22 CRS 132

Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Special Deputy Attorney General Melody R. Hairston, for the State.

The Carolina Law Group, by Kirby H. Smith, III, for defendant-appellant.

ZACHARY, Judge.

Defendant Marcus Antonio Satterfield appeals from the trial court's judgment entered upon a jury's verdicts finding him guilty of felony assault by strangulation, misdemeanor breaking or entering, misdemeanor resisting a public officer and attaining habitual-felon status. We conclude that Defendant received a fair trial, free from error.

I. Background

On 3 February 2021, Roxboro Police Department Detective James Seifert arrested Defendant at the residence of Defendant's former girlfriend in Person County. Defendant was alleged to have broken into her mobile home and attacked her. On 4 February 2021, Defendant was charged with felony assault by strangulation, felony breaking or entering, and misdemeanor resisting a public officer.

On 8 February 2021, Attorney Pressley was appointed to represent Defendant. On 9 March 2021, Pressley filed a motion pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1002 seeking an order committing Defendant to Central Regional Hospital to determine his capacity to proceed to trial. In that motion, Pressley, who regularly represented Defendant, explained that "Defendant has a history of mental illness but is an intelligent individual. When stable[,] he is able to make rational and reasonable decisions. Unfortunately, his present state is disorganized and combative." Pressley's ultimate concern was that Defendant "[cannot] stay focused and is combative and appears unable to assist counsel at this time in his defense." The same day, the district court ordered that Defendant be committed "for observation and treatment . . . to determine [his] capacity to proceed."

Pressley subsequently withdrew as Defendant's counsel, and Attorney Simmons was assigned to represent Defendant. Thereafter, on 21 April 2021, Central Regional Hospital Senior Psychologist Dr. Matthew R. McNally conducted a forensic evaluation of Defendant lasting more than three hours. Dr. McNally submitted his written report on 17 May 2021.

As part of Dr. McNally's evaluation, he reviewed records from previous treatment providers, which evinced a pattern of mental impairment when Defendant failed to take antipsychotic medications. Dr. McNally reported that Defendant was not taking antipsychotic medications at the time of the evaluation and that Defendant "demonstrated ongoing impairment from mental health symptoms (e.g., Schizophrenia Spectrum and Other Psychotic Disorders and/or Bipolar and Related Disorders)[.]" Dr. McNally determined that Defendant "demonstrated adequate knowledge" of the legal proceedings against him and awareness of his situation, but concluded that Defendant was "unable to rationally and reasonably assist in the preparation of his defense" and therefore was "incapable to proceed at [the] time."^[1]However, in Dr. McNally's opinion, Defendant could "be restored to capacity in a reasonable period of time" with treatment, including "tak[ing] medications as prescribed[.]"

Several weeks after the forensic evaluation, on 3 June 2021, the matter came on for hearing before the district court to determine Defendant's capacity to proceed. The court reviewed Dr. McNally's report and heard Defendant's testimony.^[2]

By order entered 8 June 2021, the district court concluded that Defendant (1) was "capable of demonstrating an adequate factual understanding of the nature and object of the proceedings against him"; (2) "comprehend[ed] his situation in reference to the proceedings against him"; and (3) had "sufficient ability to assist his attorney in his defense in a rational or reasonable manner in the proceedings against him[.]" The court determined that Defendant was "capable to proceed to trial and other proceedings[.]" Additionally, in consideration of Defendant's strong-but "not unreasonable"-desire to have a probable cause hearing "to assist in evaluating the cases against him[,]" the district court ordered that a probable cause hearing be held on 10 June 2021.

The next month, on 28 July 2021, a Person County grand jury returned a true bill of indictment charging Defendant with felony assault by strangulation, felony breaking or entering, and misdemeanor resisting a public officer.

On 18 March 2022, the superior court allowed Simmons to withdraw as Defendant's counsel. Thereafter, Attorney Jones was appointed to represent Defendant. On 31 May 2022, a grand jury indicted Defendant for attaining habitual-felon status.

On 20 September 2022, the superior court ordered that Defendant be transferred from the county jail to the North Carolina Division of Adult Correction for safekeeping pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 162-39, so that he could receive "medical or mental health treatment[.]" Approximately two months later, on 14 November 2022, Defendant's case came on for trial. Neither Jones nor Defendant raised any objection or voiced any concern regarding Defendant's capacity to proceed before or during his trial.

On 15 November 2022, the jury returned verdicts finding Defendant guilty of felony assault by strangulation, misdemeanor breaking or entering, and misdemeanor resisting a public officer. The jury also found Defendant had attained habitual-felon status. After consolidating Defendant's offenses for sentencing, the trial court imposed a term of 84 to 113 months in the custody of the North Carolina Division of Adult Correction.

Defendant gave oral notice of appeal.

II. District Court Capacity Order

Defendant first argues that neither the district court's findings of fact nor the evidence supports the court's conclusion that Defendant had "sufficient ability to assist his attorney in his defense in a rational or reasonable manner in the proceedings against him"; Defendant contends that the record instead shows that he lacked capacity to proceed.

A. Preservation

As a preliminary matter, the State asserts that Defendant neglected to preserve for appellate review the issue of his capacity to proceed in that neither the record nor the transcript reflect that Defendant appealed the district court's 8 June 2021 capacity order or that there were "any further proceedings relating to Defendant's capacity to stand trial."

Where, as here, defense counsel files a motion for a capacity hearing "alleging that [the] [d]efendant was not competent to stand trial[,]" and the court subsequently conducts a capacity hearing and determines that the defendant is capable of standing trial, the defendant has "presented to the trial court a timely motion and obtained a ruling upon that motion" in accordance with Rule 10(a)(1) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. State v. Bethea, 291 N.C.App. 591, 593, 896 S.E.2d 277, 279 (2023), disc. review denied, __ N.C. __, __ S.E.2d __ (2024); N.C. R. App. P. 10(a)(1). Accordingly, the issue of Defendant's capacity to stand trial was properly preserved for review.

B. Standard of Review

"When the capacity of the defendant to proceed is questioned, the court shall hold a hearing to determine the defendant's capacity to proceed." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1002(b)(1) (2023). The trial court's order "shall contain findings of fact to support its determination of the defendant's capacity to proceed." Id. § 15A-1002(b1).

"[F]indings of fact as to [a] defendant's mental capacity are conclusive on appeal if supported by the evidence." Bethea, 291 N.C.App. at 593, 896 S.E.2d at 279 (citation omitted).

A trial court's determination that a defendant has the capacity to proceed "will not be overturned, absent a showing that the trial judge abused his discretion." State v. McClain, 169 N.C.App. 657, 663, 610 S.E.2d 783, 787 (2005). Under this standard of review, a trial court abuses its discretion only where its action is "manifestly unsupported by reason" or is "so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision." State v. Whaley, 362 N.C. 156, 160, 655 S.E.2d 388, 390 (2008) (citation omitted).

C. Discussion

There are two potential sources of a criminal defendant's right to a capacity hearing: statutory and constitutional. State v. Wilkins, 287 N.C.App. 343, 346, 882 S.E.2d 454, 456 (2022), disc. review denied, 385 N.C. 313, 890 S.E.2d 903 (2023). The statutory right arises from §§ 15A-1001 and 1002 of our General Statutes. Id.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1001 provides:

No person may be tried, convicted, sentenced, or punished for a crime when by reason of mental illness or defect he is unable to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him, to comprehend his own situation in reference to the proceedings, or to assist in his defense in a rational or reasonable manner.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1001(a).

"The statute provides three separate tests in the disjunctive. If a defendant is deficient under any of these tests[,] he or she does not have the capacity to proceed." State v. Shytle, 323 N.C. 684, 688, 374 S.E.2d 573, 575 (1989). However, "[t]he defendant bears the burden of demonstrating" that he lacks the capacity to stand trial. McClain, 169 N.C.App. at 663, 610 S.E.2d at 787.

With...