United States v. Lorthridge

87 F.4th 889

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee v. Felipe LORTHRIDGE, Defendant - Appellant

No. 23-1164

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

Submitted: September 22, 2023

Filed: December 5, 2023

Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellant and appeared on the brief was Kim C. Freter, AFPD, of East Saint Louis, IL.

Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellee and appeared on the brief was Carrie Costantin, AUSA, of Saint Louis, MO.

Before COLLOTON, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.

KOBES, Circuit Judge.

Felipe Lorthridge, Sr., was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He was found incompetent to stand trial and later diagnosed with schizophrenia. The district court¹ ordered that he be involuntarily medicated to restore his competency. Lorthridge appeals, and we affirm.

I.

The Government alleges that Lorthridge fled a traffic stop before ditching his car and a gun. He has been detained pending trial since his 2019 arrest.

After Lorthridge moved for a mental competency examination, a forensic psychologist concluded that a mental disorder impaired his ability to understand the nature and consequences of his trial and to assist counsel. She noted in her report that he believed in a widespread conspiracy involving the police, his fellow inmates, the prosecutor, his attorney, and the judiciary. The magistrate judge² found Lorthridge incompetent and ordered further treatment and evaluation to determine whether he would attain competency in the foreseeable future.

Lorthridge was transferred to the U.S. Medical Center for Federal Prisoners in Springfield, Missouri, where two more psychologists evaluated him and issued another report. The psychologists diagnosed him with schizophrenia and found that without antipsychotic medication, he was substantially unlikely to be restored to competency in the foreseeable future. Lorthridge refused to participate in competency restoration treatment and declined to take antipsychotic medication. In an administrative hearing, the facility found that Lorthridge was not a danger to himself or others in a correctional setting, so he could not be involuntarily medicated under Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 110 S.Ct. 1028, 108 L.Ed.2d 178 (1990).

The Government moved to involuntarily medicate Lorthridge to restore his competency under Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166, 123 S.Ct. 2174, 156 L.Ed.2d 197 (2003). The magistrate judge held a Sell hearing by video conference, which Lorthridge refused to join, and recommended granting the motion. Lorthridge objected, and the district court held a de novo, in-person hearing. Fearing that the in-person hearing was a veiled attempt to get him in a position vulnerable to attack, Lorthridge again refused to attend until the court ordered him to do so.

Three doctors from the Springfield facility testified: Dr. Gary Sarrazin, then Chief of Psychiatry; Dr. Elizabeth Tyner, Chief of Psychology; and Dr. Amanda Reed, one of the Springfield report's authors. Drs. Tyner and Reed interacted with Lorthridge during weekly rounds and described his behavior and condition. They said that his delusions kept him confined to his cell and sometimes unwilling to eat for fear of poisoning. Dr. Sarrazin, who retired before the Sell hearing, met with Lorthridge monthly and testified about a proposed treatment plan he developed. All agreed that Lorthridge suffers from schizophrenia and that he is unlikely to attain competency without antipsychotic medication. Dr. Sarrazin testified that in his 20 years at the facility, involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication restored competency to over 75% of people with psychotic disorders. And he believed that medication would improve Lorthridge's life by helping him function better, leave his cell, and interact with others.

The court found that the Government carried its burden under Sell, and it ordered that Lorthridge be involuntarily medicated consistent with Dr. Sarrazin's treatment plan. Lorthridge timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine. United States v. Coy, 991 F.3d 924, 926 (8th Cir. 2021).

II.

Lorthridge has "a significant constitutionally protected liberty interest in avoiding the unwanted administration of antipsychotic drugs." Sell, 539 U.S. at 178, 123 S.Ct. 2174 (cleaned up) (citation omitted). But the Government may forcibly medicate a defendant if it shows "(1) that an important governmental interest is at stake; (2) that involuntary medication will significantly further that governmental interest; (3) that involuntary medication is necessary to further that interest; and (4) that administration of the drugs is medically appropriate." United States v. Mackey, 717 F.3d 569, 573 (8th Cir. 2013) (citing Sell, 539 U.S. at 180-81, 123 S.Ct. 2174).

Lorthridge challenges the district court's conclusions on the first, second, and fourth Sell elements. We review the first element de novo and the remaining elements for clear error. Id.

Bringing "an individual accused of a serious crime" to trial is an important governmental interest. Sell, 539 U.S. at 180, 123 S.Ct. 2174. And possessing a firearm as a felon, for which Lorthridge faces a ten-year statutory maximum sentence, is a serious crime. See Mackey, 717 F.3d at 573 (finding a crime with "a maximum term of ten years' imprisonment . . . [was] 'serious' under any reasonable standard" (citation omitted)); United States v. Fazio, 599 F.3d 835, 840 (8th Cir. 2010) (being a felon and an armed career criminal in possession of a firearm is "very serious"). Lorthridge's suggestion that it is a "victimless, non-violent status offense" does not make it less serious, nor does it weaken the governmental interest in prosecution. See Mackey, 717 F.3d at 573-74.

We do not think the "special circumstances" Lorthridge cites undermine this interest. See Sell, 539 U.S. at 180, 123 S.Ct. 2174 ("Special circumstances may lessen the importance of [the Government's interest in prosecution]."). Two of those circumstances attempt to undermine governmental interests that the district court did not rely on. He says that the court should have considered the lack of connection between his mental disease and alleged crimes, which we said in United States v....