In re Interest of J.K., 14–0852.

• Citation: 873 N.W.2d 289
• Decision Date: 14 October 2015
• Docket Number: No. 14–0852.,14–0852.
• Parties: In the Interest of J.K., Minor Child. J.K., Minor Child, Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa

873 N.W.2d 289

In the Interest of J.K., Minor Child. J.K., Minor Child, Appellant.

No. 14–0852.

Court of Appeals of Iowa.

Oct. 14, 2015.

Brent Pattison of Drake Legal Clinic, Des Moines, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bruce Kempkes, Assistant Attorney General, and John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, for appellee.

Considered by TABOR, P.J., and BOWER and McDONALD, JJ.

TABOR, Presiding Judge.

Teenager J.K. challenges a juvenile court order finding he did not overcome the presumption that he was competent to stand trial on several delinquency charges. J.K. contends the court erred in rejecting an expert opinion that he did not "appear able to assist counsel" in his defense. J.K. further argues the competency ruling violated his right to procedural due process by presuming children in his position are competent and requiring them to rebut that presumption.

Initially, we do not conclude that allocating the burden of proving incompetency to J.K. violated his right to procedural due process. Although the legislative branch could extend greater protections to children in competency proceedings, the juvenile court here afforded the basic procedural safeguards to J.K.—especially considering its application of the specialized juvenile competency definition from In re A.B., No. 05–0868, 2006 WL 469945, at *3 (Iowa Ct.App. Mar. 1, 2006).

Further, like the juvenile court, we conclude J.K. failed to overcome the presumption of competency and establish he was incompetent by a preponderance of the evidence. Like the juvenile court, we are not convinced by the opinion of the psychological evaluator offered to rebut the presumption that J.K. was competent to participate in the delinquency proceedings. The evaluator was inexperienced; in her report she advocated for a presumption of incompetency at odds with the existing Iowa standard; she did not review pertinent parts of J.K.'s juvenile court and counseling history; she acknowledged the results of her report should be viewed with caution given J.K.'s poor cooperation during the interview; and she acknowledged J.K. had "the capacity to learn the basic concepts necessary for competency" with help from his attorney. Considering these factors, as well as the countervailing evidence offered by the State, we reach the same conclusion as the juvenile court—J.K. could appreciate his charges, understand the proceedings, and assist effectively in his defense. Accordingly, we affirm the ruling on interlocutory review and remand for further proceedings.

I. Background facts and proceedings

A decade ago at the age of five, J.K.—the youngest of nine children—left New Orleans with his parents to escape the toll of Hurricane Katrina. His family suffered loss and trauma as a result of the storm.

When asked about his memories of Louisiana, J.K. recalled he "used to hear a lot of shootings and see a lot of fights." Beyond that statement, our record is thin on specific examples of what adversity J.K. faced in his early years.

J.K.'s middle school years have been difficult. According to a report by his juvenile court officer (JCO), J.K. had twenty delinquency referrals between August 2011 and August 2014. When J.K. was just ten years old, he joined three other juveniles in harassing and assaulting a disabled man at a farmer's market near Drake University. The boys, who were riding bicycles, surrounded the man's motorized wheelchair and slapped him in the head while he pleaded with them to stop. The boys rode off when onlookers called police. Charged with the delinquent act of third-degree harassment, J.K. entered an informal adjustment agreement on August 29, 2011. As part of that agreement, J.K. wrote a letter apologizing to his victim; J.K. said he felt bad for what he did and was "now working on how to change [his] ways."

Despite expressing those sentiments, J.K. continued to engage in disruptive behaviors in school and had numerous run-ins with police in the community. School records reveal J.K. leveled threats and physical aggression against classmates and teachers. For instance, in October 2012 he pointed his finger at a teacher and "made noises and motions as if he were shooting." His individualized education plan (IEP) dated January 2013 indicated he exhibited "significant behavioral concerns in the school setting."

In late 2013, the State filed a series of delinquency petitions against J.K. On November 20, 2013, the State filed a petition alleging J.K. committed three counts of carrying weapons, in violation of Iowa Code section 724.4(1) (2013). The allegations involved neighbors calling police on October 27, after seeing juveniles threatening each other with guns in a city park; when police caught up with J.K., he allegedly had three CO2 BB guns concealed in his backpack.

On December 26, 2013, the State filed another delinquency petition alleging J.K. committed interference with official acts, in violation of Iowa Code section 719.1(1), and criminal trespass, in violation of Iowa Code sections 713.7(2)(a) and 716.8(1). These charges stemmed from a police investigation of a bicycle theft from a resident's front porch; J.K. allegedly ran from the responding officer and hid inside a stranger's vehicle.

On December 31, 2013, the State filed a delinquency petition alleging J.K. committed burglary in the third degree, in violation of Iowa Code sections 713.1 and 713.6A(1). The petition alleged that J.K. was one of several juveniles who broke into a house on December 30, 2013.

On January 6, 2014, the child's attorney filed a motion to continue the adjudication hearing set for January 17 and sought a competency evaluation by Dr. Stephanie Bruss. The motion noted the child's JCO had planned to request court approval for Dr. Bruss to conduct a psychological evaluation of J.K. The juvenile court granted the request for a competency evaluation.

On January 21, 2014, J.K. met with Dr. Bruss. She issued a fifteen-page, single-spaced psychological assessment of J.K. She concluded he was not competent to stand trial, summarizing her opinion as follows:

At present, he does appear to have the capacity for a factual understanding of the court system and his charges, with sufficient education and assistance. However, he does not appear to have a rational understanding of the legal system or his charges, and does not appear able to assist counsel with a reasonable degree of rational understanding.

Two days before the competency hearing scheduled for April 11, 2014, the State filed yet another delinquency petition. This petition alleged J.K. committed theft in the fourth degree, in violation of Iowa Code sections 714.1(1) and 714.2(4), and harassment in the third degree, in violation of Iowa Code section 708.7(1). The charges arose from a shoplifting incident on March 24, 2014 during which J.K. and another juvenile allegedly took $325 in merchandise from a department store and gave false information to a police officer. According to the police report, J.K. lied about his identity and told the investigating officer he currently lived in New Orleans and had taken a bus to visit his cousin in Iowa.

At the April 11 competency hearing, J.K.'s attorney objected to the State calling a psychiatrist to testify, alleging late notice of the witness. The State countered that it was not obliged to provide a witness list for the competency hearing but did so "to be fair." The juvenile court ruled: "I'm in agreement with the child's objection and am not going to allow a late-named psychiatrist to give an opinion on due process grounds." Accordingly, Dr. Bruss was the only witness to express a specific opinion on J.K.'s competency at the hearing. The State called two witnesses: Brian Ellis, a counselor for the Behavior Health Intervention Services (BHIS) who worked with J.K., and Amanda Proctor, who supervised J.K. through the Early Services Project (ESP) at Orchard Place.

The juvenile court entered its competency ruling on April 23, 2014. The court concluded J.K.'s evidence did not overcome the presumption of competency, reasoning:

The Court is not confident from the evaluation report and from the testimony of Dr. Bruss that [J.K.] cannot, due to his immaturity or his trauma history, consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding. [J.K.'s] responses during the evaluation evince sufficient rational and factual understanding of the proceedings against him. [J.K.'s] uncooperative behavior during the Evaluation significantly lessens the weight the Undersigned is able to give to the report and its recommendations. The Evaluation does not and the Child has not overcome the presumption of competency especially as applied to this Child and considering all circumstances and findings noted herein.

The child's attorney sought interlocutory review on May 22. The State filed a resistance. On June 27, 2014, the supreme court granted the child's interlocutory appeal and stayed the juvenile court proceedings. After the parties filed their briefs, the supreme court transferred the case to our court on June 9, 2015.

II. Scope of Review

Delinquency proceedings serve as an alternative to the criminal prosecution of a child. In re A.K., 825 N.W.2d 46, 49 (Iowa 2013). The objective of the juvenile court, and the appellate court on review, is to ensure an outcome that is in the child's best interests. Id. We review delinquency proceedings de novo, but give weight to the factual findings of the juvenile court. In re D.S., 856 N.W.2d 348, 351 (Iowa 2014). We also review de novo decisions implicating a juvenile's constitutional rights. Cf. State v. Lyman, 776 N.W.2d 865, 873 (Iowa 2010) (applying de novo review to competency determination in criminal case).

III. Competency to Stand Trial in Delinquency Proceedings

J.K. contends because of his immaturity, borderline cognitive abilities, traumatic history, and impulsivity he is not competent to stand trial on his delinquency charges. He argues, first, that the juvenile court erred...