Bonga v. State

• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: OPINION
• Citation: Bonga v. State , 797 N.W.2d 712 (Minn. 2011)
• Decision Date: 25 May 2011
• Docket Number: No. A10–1376.,A10–1376.
• Parties: Dario George BONGA, Appellant,v.STATE of Minnesota, Respondent.

797 N.W.2d 712

Dario George BONGA, Appellant,

v.STATE of Minnesota, Respondent.

No. A10–1376.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 25, 2011.

Syllabus by the Court

The district court gave sufficient weight to evidence suggesting incompetence when it concluded that there was no reason to doubt appellant's competency to plead guilty as defined by Minn. R.Crim. P. 20.01, subd. 1 (2009).

Melissa Sheridan, Eagan, MN, for appellant.Lori Swanson, Attorney General, John B. Galus, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, MN, and Thomas H. Pertler, Carlton County Attorney, Carlton, MN, for respondent.

OPINION

ANDERSON, G. BARRY, Justice.

Appellant Dario George Bonga pleaded guilty to first-degree premeditated murder, Minn.Stat. § 609.185(a)(1) (2010), in the stabbing death of Carlos San Miguel. Bonga pleaded guilty at a hearing he requested, and that was held, less than one day after Bonga confessed to killing San Miguel and then tried to kill himself in jail. The district court accepted Bonga's guilty plea, convicted him, and sentenced him to life in prison. Bonga filed a petition for postconviction relief in which he sought to withdraw his guilty plea because he was not competent to plead guilty. In Bonga v. State ( Bonga I ), 765 N.W.2d 639 (Minn.2009), we reversed the postconviction court's summary dismissal of Bonga's petition. Id. at 643. On remand, the postconviction court denied Bonga's petition after concluding that there was no reason to doubt whether Bonga was competent to plead guilty. The issue in this appeal is whether the district court gave sufficient weight to evidence suggesting incompetence when it concluded that there was no reason to doubt Bonga's competency to plead guilty. We affirm.

We set out the facts of the murder of Carlos San Miguel in Bonga I, 765 N.W.2d at 641, and repeat them here only as necessary to this opinion. On July 17, 1998, appellant Dario George Bonga was with San Miguel and two other men when San Miguel made a disparaging remark about a musician Bonga admired. Id. Bonga punched San Miguel and stabbed him with a screwdriver. Id. San Miguel was stabbed 80 times in the chest, back, and throat. Id. Bonga admitted at his guilty plea hearing that some of the stab wounds were intended to kill San Miguel. Id. Bonga took money and a wallet from San Miguel's pockets after he died. Id. In addition to the facts set out in Bonga I, we note here that Bonga testified that after San Miguel fell to the ground, Bonga continued to stab San Miguel in the chest and, after hearing breath from San Miguel, thought San Miguel might still be alive. Bonga testified that he then continued to stab San Miguel in the chest and throat to make sure San Miguel died.

A grand jury indictment charged Bonga with first-degree premeditated murder, Minn.Stat. § 609.185(a)(1), first-degree felony murder, Minn.Stat. § 609.185(a)(3) (2010), and second-degree intentional murder, Minn.Stat. § 609.19, subd. 1(1) (2010). On August 26, 1999, approximately three weeks before trial, the district court heard a motion from Bonga to discharge his public defender and represent himself. At the hearing, Bonga told the court that his public defender thought Bonga had “maybe no kind of defense anyway.” Bonga told the court that “my only hope is maybe I can talk to [the prosecutor].... I got something [the public defender] don't have, you know. I can sit down with [the prosecutor] and, you know, tell him what happened that night.” The court granted Bonga's motion to represent himself and discharged the public defender. The court appointed the discharged public defender as standby counsel, gave Bonga a week to reconsider, and noted in its memorandum that Bonga “does seem to want to proceed pro se in part to obtain some managerial control over plea negotiations and to have the opportunity for direct discussions” with the State.¹

Four days later, on August 30, 1999, Bonga asked to meet with a Carlton County investigator and, during the meeting, confessed to killing San Miguel. Bonga I, 765 N.W.2d at 641. The transcript of the meeting between Bonga and the investigator indicates that the interview began at 9:33 p.m. and ended at 10:13 p.m. According to medical records filed with the postconviction court, an ambulance was called to the jail at 11:53 p.m., and Bonga was admitted to a local hospital at 12:20 a.m. with self-inflicted razor wounds on his forearms. Bonga was discharged from the hospital at 1:15 a.m., after the wounds were stapled and dressed.

The next morning, Bonga informed the district court that he wanted to plead guilty to first-degree premeditated murder. The court directed standby counsel to meet with Bonga. Standby counsel, Bonga, and counsel for the State appeared in court at 1:10 p.m. Standby counsel informed the court that he had met with Bonga before the hearing and informed Bonga of several options, including that Bonga could have counsel reappointed to represent him and that Bonga could delay the guilty plea hearing. Standby counsel informed the court that Bonga wanted to proceed with the plea hearing.

Standby counsel also informed the court that “[f]rom my discussions with Mr. Bonga today, there have been no difference that I've noticed in [Bonga's] mental or emotional makeup from when I first met him.” The court asked standby counsel whether Bonga was “lucid”; standby counsel said that Bonga was lucid, but depressed, and told the court, “I believe Mr. Bonga wants to plead today. He understands the consequences to plead guilty to first degree murder. He wants to proceed and get the plea and be done with this.” The court asked standby counsel whether counsel had “made any observations or do you have any reason or basis at all to doubt [Bonga's] competency to either understand the charges or his right to an attorney or his right to trial?” Standby counsel responded:

From my discussions with Mr. Bonga, my understanding of his situation, and also being able to observe him since I was appointed counsel, I would say that at this point in time, Mr. Bonga has an understanding of what is going on, understands the seriousness of the charges, has made an intelligent, knowingly, voluntary decision from his perspective to enter a Plea of Guilty. And as the Court is well aware, he has that right. And I see nothing to prevent Mr. Bonga from going forward today with that request.

The court noted that standby counsel and counsel for the State each had worked on the case for about a year, and, citing Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 20, asked if either was “concerned in regards to [Bonga's] competency.” “Is there anything that questions or suggests to either of you that Mr. Bonga is not rational[,] oriented or functioning appropriately at this time? Because the Court would order a competency study if either of you feel that that's at issue, if there's any doubt at all.” The transcript includes no response from standby counsel. Counsel for the State responded by asking for and receiving permission to question Bonga, which led to this exchange:

[THE STATE]: Mr. Bonga, why did you try to take your own life last night?

[BONGA]: I—I didn't expect to be here today, you know.

[THE STATE]: I understand that.

[BONGA]: I wasn't. And it wasn't to get attention or nothing like that. It was meant. It was seriously for real, you know, but—

[THE STATE]: You understand, Mr. Bonga, courts can't take guilty pleas from people who aren't in their, to put it in kind of lay terms, from people who aren't in their right minds. Do you understand that? People have to know what they're doing.

[BONGA]: Yeah. Well—

[THE STATE]: And you understand—

[BONGA]: I've been out of right, you know, I ain't been in the right mind for a long time, so this ain't got nothing to do with it.

[THE STATE]: Well, let me ask you this: What is it that you're going to be pleading to today?

[BONGA]: First degree murder.

[THE STATE]: And what's the penalty for being guilty of first degree murder?

[BONGA]: All day long.

[THE STATE]: What does that mean?

[BONGA]: Life.

[THE STATE]: And you've had an opportunity to talk with [the public defender] and you've looked at your options?

[BONGA]: There ain't many there to look at, but yeah.

[THE STATE]: And are you—are you doing this today because you're really guilty, or are you doing this today because you're depressed and want to get it over with?

[BONGA]: A little of both.

The court followed the State's questioning with its own questioning of Bonga. Bonga told the district court that he had never been a patient at a psychiatric hospital, never treated by a psychiatrist or psychologist, and never prescribed any medicine other than antidepressants. The exchange included the following colloquy:

THE COURT: And I understand that since we talked last, the circumstances have occurred in regards to your suicide.

Sometimes people will attempt suicide because they imagine things or they have some irrational motivation.

Sometimes people commit suicide or attempt to commit suicide because they're emotionally upset and they are depressed, but that doesn't go to competency. That doesn't go to their mental ability.

Now, you made a full statement to the State yesterday, is that correct?

[BONGA]: Yeah.

THE COURT: And had you planned this suicide for some time, or was it just a spur of the moment?

[BONGA]: That was—it was planned for some time. That was the reason that I made that, was just to set the record straight.

THE COURT: Okay. So last week you came over here, one of the reasons you seemed to be telling the Court to discharge [the public defender] is you wanted to be free to talk directly to the Prosecution and talk to the State.

[BONGA]: Yep.

THE COURT: And once—

[BONGA]: Because I knew I was going to do this and that was—that was the reason, you know.... I know what, you know, I know what I was facing, you know. I've been there, you know.

THE COURT: You've been imprisoned not just in custody, but actual prison since age of 15...