G.P. v. Bisig
| Decision Date | 20 October 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2022-SC-0011-MR, 2022-SC-0125-MR |
| Citation | 655 S.W.3d 128 |
| Parties | G.P., Appellant v. Honorable Angela McCormick BISIG, Judge, Jefferson Circuit Court Div. 10, Appellee and Commonwealth of Kentucky, Real Party in Interest C.M., Appellant v. Honorable Annie O'Connell, Judge, Jefferson Circuit Court Div. 2, Appellee and Commonwealth of Kentucky, Real Party in Interest |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS, G.P. AND C.M.: Elizabeth B. McMahon, Louisville Metro Public Defender's Office.
APPELLEES: Hon. Angela McCormick Bisig, Hon. Annie O'Connell, Louisville, Jefferson County.
COUNSEL FOR REAL PARTY IN INTEREST, COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY: Daniel Cameron, Attorney General of Kentucky, Matthew F. Kuhn, Brett R. Nolan, Michael R. Wajda, Office of the Solicitor General.
In this Opinion, we consider appeals from the denial of two petitions for writs of prohibition. These appeals are before us on allegations of the unconstitutionality of recently-enacted Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS) Chapter 202C, which creates a procedure for indefinite involuntary commitment for incompetent criminal defendants. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the Court of Appeals’ denial of both writ petitions.
On April 1, 2021, KRS 202C went into effect. The statutes were written to close a perceived loophole in KRS 202A and 202B, the statutes governing involuntary civil commitment. Under KRS 202A, a mentally ill person may be involuntarily hospitalized if 1) they present a danger or threat of danger to self, family, or others because of the mental illness, 2) they can reasonably benefit from treatment, and 3) hospitalization is the least restrictive alternative. KRS 202A.026. KRS 202B requires the same criteria be met for involuntary commitment of an intellectually disabled person, rather than a mentally ill person. KRS 202B.040. Both KRS 202A and 202B require that an individual be able to "reasonably benefit from treatment." So, if a person is found to be incapable of reasonably benefitting from treatment, then they are not eligible for involuntary commitment under KRS 202A or 202B.
To create a process to involuntarily commit an incompetent criminal defendant who cannot reasonably benefit from treatment, the legislature passed House Bill (HB) 310, creating KRS 202C. KRS 202C only applies to persons charged with "qualifying offenses," which include capital offenses, Class A felonies, Class B felonies resulting in death or serious physical injury, First-Degree Rape, and First-Degree Sodomy. KRS 202C.010(12). If a defendant is found incompetent to stand trial and unlikely to regain competency, then the Commonwealth's attorney's office must file a Petition for Involuntary Commitment under KRS 202C. KRS 202C.020(1). After this filing, the defendant1 is appointed a guardian ad litem and defense counsel, if the defendant does not already have counsel. KRS 202C.020(2). With these representatives, the defendant must then appear for an adversarial evidentiary hearing. KRS 202C.030. At that hearing, a judge must determine if the defendant is guilty of the underlying crime by a preponderance of the evidence. KRS 202C.030(3).
If the Commonwealth establishes guilt by a preponderance of the evidence, then the defendant proceeds to a commitment hearing. KRS 202C.040. There, a fact finder must determine if the defendant meets the following criteria:
KRS 202C.050. If each of these criteria is met, then the defendant is involuntarily committed indefinitely at the Kentucky Correctional Psychiatric Center (KCPC). The incompetent defendant may be discharged from this indefinite commitment if and when he demonstrates that he no longer meets the criteria set out above. KRS 202C.060.
When the writ petitions at issue here were filed, both G.P. and C.M. were in the midst of KRS 202C proceedings, albeit at different stages.2 G.P. was indicted in 2018 for one count of murder. After G.P. was found incompetent to stand trial, the Commonwealth filed a Petition for Commitment under KRS 202C. C.M. was indicted for one count of first-degree rape (victim under 12 years of age), one count of first-degree assault, and one count of first-degree robbery in 2019. As with G.P., after C.M. was found incompetent to stand trial, the Commonwealth filed a Petition for Commitment for C.M. under KRS 202C.
G.P. and C.M. filed petitions for writs of prohibition at the Court of Appeals requesting relief from the alleged unconstitutional process set out in KRS 202C. They filed these writs before an ultimate determination on their commitment was made by a trial court, but after being confined following the initiation of KRS 202C proceedings. G.P. and C.M. asked that court, as they do ours, to prohibit the KRS 202C process from continuing in each of their cases.
To the Court of Appeals, G.P. and C.M. each argued that the legislature did not comply with Kentucky constitutional requirements for legislative procedure in passing House Bill 310, which created KRS 202C. See KY. CONST. §§ 46, 51. They further argued that KRS 202C applies retroactively, thus violating KRS 446.080 and 446.110. Finally, both C.M. and G.P. argued that KRS 202C violates a defendant's due process rights by depriving him of a jury of his peers as well as the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard for guilt, and by forcing an incompetent person to be tried on the facts of a case when he cannot, by definition, assist in his own defense. In two separate opinions, the Court of Appeals denied both writ petitions. The Court of Appeals reasoned that G.P. and C.M. did not meet the criteria for writ relief because they each have an adequate remedy by appeal. Both G.P. and C.M. appealed the denials of relief to this Court, maintaining their arguments on appeal.
When a trial court acts within its jurisdiction, as in the underlying cases at bar, this Court only grants writs of prohibition where 1) the petitioner has no adequate remedy by appeal, and 2) the petitioner would suffer "great injustice and irreparable injury" absent the relief sought. Avery v. Knopf , 807 S.W.2d 55, 55 (Ky. 1991) (quoting Shumaker v. Paxton , 613 S.W.2d 130, 131 (Ky. 1981) ). The second requirement may be set aside in "certain special cases ... [where] a substantial miscarriage of justice will result if the lower court is proceeding erroneously, and correction of the error is necessary and appropriate in the interest of orderly judicial administration." Bender v. Eaton , 343 S.W.2d 799, 801 (Ky. 1961). Even under the special cases exception, however, this Court's precedent requires no adequate remedy by appeal. Id. ().
"In cases involving a claimed constitutional defect, as a general rule the remedy of appeal is adequate and prohibition is not proper." Graham v. Mills , 694 S.W.2d 698, 700 (Ky. 1985) (citations omitted); see also Avery , 807 S.W.2d at 55 ; Harrod v. Meigs , 340 S.W.2d 601 (Ky. 1960). The basis for the relief sought by both G.P. and C.M. is the alleged unconstitutionality of KRS 202C. That statute provides an avenue for habeas relief following an official determination of incompetence. Further, this Court sees no reason why a final order demanding indefinite involuntary commitment could not itself be appealed. Thus, G.P. and C.M. have failed to meet the criteria for writ relief because there is an adequate remedy by appeal...
To continue reading
Request your trial