Tinisha J. Wash. v. State

598 S.W.3d 656

Tinisha J. WASHINGTON, Appellant,

v.STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 107683

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.

Filed: March 31, 2020

FOR APPELLANT, Gwenda R. Robinson, Missouri Public Defender’s Office, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, Missouri 63101.

FOR RESPONDENT, Karen L. Kramer, Assistant Attorney General, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.

Philip M. Hess, Presiding Judge

Introduction

Tinisha Washington ("Movant") appeals the motion court’s judgment denying her Rule 24.035 motion¹ without an evidentiary hearing. Movant brings four claims on appeal. First, Movant claims her plea counsel ("Plea Counsel") was ineffective in allowing and advising Movant to enter an Alford plea without considering Movant’s competence under Section 550.020 when Plea Counsel had reason to question Movant’s mental condition.² Second, Movant claims Plea Counsel was ineffective in allowing and advising Movant to be sentenced because Movant was not competent to proceed during her sentencing. Third, Movant claims her sentences were improperly imposed because the sentencing court should not have sentenced Movant when she was not competent. Fourth, Movant claims Plea Counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and raise a not guilty by reason of insanity ("NGRI") defense under Section 552.030 before allowing Movant to enter a blind Alford plea. Movant requests we set aside the motion court’s judgment, vacate the sentences, and remand to the circuit court for further proceedings. In the alternative, Movant asks us to remand to the motion court for an evidentiary hearing.

We vacate the sentences against Movant because there was reasonable cause for concern about Movant’s competence at sentencing. We remand to the motion court to hold an evidentiary hearing on Movant’s claims of ineffectiveness regarding Movant’s competence at the plea hearing and the viability of an NGRI defense based on Plea Counsel’s knowledge before the plea hearing. Movant alleged facts which, if true, would entitle her to relief based on these ineffectiveness claims. We find, although Movant was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on her second point relied on, this issue is moot because we have vacated Movant’s sentences.³

Factual and Procedural Background

On February 25, 2014, Donna Washington ⁴ called law enforcement to have officers check Movant’s welfare because Movant had not been taking her medication. When officers arrived, Movant was barricaded in her bedroom. The officers convinced Movant to open her bedroom door. When the officers entered the room, Movant stabbed an officer in the eye with a steak knife. The officers disarmed Movant and placed her under arrest for stabbing the officer. Movant attempted to resist the arrest. Movant was charged with and indicted by grand jury for the class A felony of first degree assault of a law enforcement officer, the unclassified felony of first degree armed criminal action, and the class D felony of resisting arrest.

On April 10, 2014, Movant’s counsel moved for a psychiatric evaluation under Sections 552.020 and 552.030 for "fitness to stand trial and state of mind at occurrence of event[.]" On April 24, 2014, the circuit court ordered Movant be examined under both Sections 552.020 and 552.030 to determine whether, because of a mental disease or defect, Movant: (1) "lack[ed] capacity to understand the proceeding against [ ]her or to assist in [ ]her defense" or (2) "at the time of the alleged criminal conduct, ... was incapable of knowing and appreciating the nature, quality[,] or wrongfulness of [ ]her conduct."

Dr. Graham’s Examination

On June 6, 2014, Movant was examined by Dr. Bridget Graham, a licensed psychologist and certified forensic examiner employed by the Department of Mental Health ("DMH") Division of Behavioral Health. Dr. Graham completed a report for the circuit court on August 15, 2014.⁵ In the report, Dr. Graham outlined numerous psychotic episodes from Movant’s medical records. Dr. Graham found Movant exhibited symptoms of a psychotic illness beginning in approximately 2007. According to Dr. Graham’s review of the records surrounding the charged offenses, Movant required anti-psychotic medication. Movant was refusing medication. Movant believed the medication was "clouding" her thoughts. After her arrest, Movant was moved from the infirmary into administrative segregation due to her continued refusal to take medications and subsequent concerns about her ability to function in the general population. Dr. Graham was concerned with Movant’s refusal to take medication.

Based on the examination and the records, Dr. Graham stated Movant lacked the capacity to understand the charges or proceedings against her and assist in her defense. Dr. Graham stated Movant refused to take her medication and demonstrated active symptoms of thought disorder. Dr. Graham also found Movant interacted in a paranoid and guarded manner and verbalized delusions, including the capgras delusion⁶ regarding her parents. Dr. Graham did not believe Movant was capable of appropriate courtroom behavior or assisting her attorney in planning or executing a realistic defense strategy. Dr. Graham found Movant did not understand her plea options, the adversarial nature of the court proceedings, the evidence against her, or the potential outcomes of her case. Dr. Graham believed Movant’s thought disorder was preventing her from thinking abstractly about her defense.

Dr. Graham found Movant required psychiatric hospitalization while the circuit court considered her competence to stand trial, in part, because she was refusing to take prescribed medication. Dr. Graham also found, if the circuit court found Movant not competent, Movant would need to be committed to DMH for inpatient treatment to restore her mental fitness to proceed. Dr. Graham made no findings under Section 552.030 on Movant’s ability to know or appreciate the nature, quality, or wrongfulness of her conduct for the charged offenses.

On August 20, 2014, the circuit court received Dr. Graham’s examination report. On September 25, 2014,⁷ the circuit court found Movant was not fit to proceed based on Dr. Graham’s report and committed Movant to DMH. Movant was admitted to Fulton State Hospital on November 20, 2014.

Dr. Telander’s Examination⁸

On March 26 and 31, 2015, Dr. Randy Telander, a certified forensic examiner at Fulton State Hospital, examined Movant. Dr. Telander reviewed Dr. Graham’s report, circuit court records, police records, and records from the Fulton State Hospital since Dr. Graham’s evaluation. Dr. Telander described Movant’s mental health and discussed Movant’s diagnoses and progress. Dr. Telander agreed with Dr. Graham that Movant suffered from schizophrenia.

Dr. Telander found Movant was not cooperative when she arrived at Fulton State Hospital on November 10, 2014. Dr. Telander noted Movant exhibited symptoms of psychosis when she claimed she did not have a family, reported no history of psychiatric problems, and claimed she had a different name. When she arrived, Movant was also guarded, disorganized, and hallucinating. While committed at the hospital, Movant was psychotic and exhibited aggressive, irritable, and argumentative behavior. Movant refused to take the prescribed antipsychotic medication when she arrived at Fulton State Hospital.

On December 4, 2014, DMH began involuntarily medicating Movant because of her history of psychosis, her history of violence, and the unlikelihood her symptoms would remit without medication. After forced medication, Movant’s symptoms decreased. In March 2015, Movant asked for an increased dosage of medication. At the time of Dr. Telander’s examinations, Movant said she was taking her medications and staying on them. Although Movant’s symptoms decreased after medication, Movant still had intermittent hallucinations and psychotic episodes.

Dr. Telander found Movant no longer needed to be held by DMH. Based on the benefits of the medication and classes, Dr. Telander found she understood the proceedings against her and was able to assist in her own defense. Dr. Telander made no findings under Section 552.030 on Movant’s ability to know or appreciate the nature, quality, or wrongfulness of her conduct for the charged offenses. Dr. Telander noted Movant gained insight into her illness. Movant told Dr. Telander she would continue to take her prescribed medication while in jail. Dr. Telander found Movant was "fully aware that doing so is imperative to maintaining her mental health." (emphasis added). Dr. Telander recommended Movant be found competent to proceed.

On April 17, 2015, the circuit court received Dr. Telander’s report, filed with a motion from DMH suggesting Movant no longer required inpatient hospitalization and recommending she be returned to the custody of the St. Louis County Justice Center until resolution of the charged offenses. On May 11, 2015, the circuit court granted the DMH motion ordering Movant was fit to proceed based on its review of Dr. Graham’s and Dr. Telander’s reports. The circuit court discharged Movant from DMH and ordered her to be returned to the St. Louis County Justice Center.

Plea Hearing and Sentencing⁹

Plea Counsel first appeared for Movant after she was returned to the St. Louis County Justice Center. Movant was incarcerated until her plea hearing on July 21, 2016. At the plea hearing, the plea court accepted Movant’s blind Alford plea.¹⁰

Sentencing took place on September 12, 2016. The injured officer and the officer’s wife both provided out-of-court statements to the sentencing court. Plea Counsel asked the sentencing court, because Movant had no prior felony convictions, to sentence her to three years for the armed criminal action charge and suspend execution of sentence on the assault and resisting arrest charges. The State recommended a ten year sentence at the plea hearing but made no recommendation at the sentencing...