In re Sims

• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: McKINSTER, Acting P. J.
• Citation: In re Sims, 27 Cal.App.5th 195, 237 Cal.Rptr.3d 860 (Cal. App. 2018)
• Decision Date: 14 September 2018
• Docket Number: E069440
• Parties: IN RE Karen SIMS, on Habeas Corpus.

27 Cal.App.5th 195

237 Cal.Rptr.3d 860

IN RE Karen SIMS, on Habeas Corpus.

E069440

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 2, California.

Filed September 14, 2018

Michaela R. Dalton for Petitioner.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Michael Pulos and Teresa Torreblanca, Deputy Attorneys General, for Respondent.

OPINION

McKINSTER, Acting P. J. Defendant and petitioner Karen Sims, a former attorney with serious mental illness of long standing, was convicted of murdering her husband Henry Sims in 2006 and was sentenced to prison for a term of 50 years to life. After her conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal in 2008, she petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court in 2011, claiming her conviction was invalid because she was incompetent to stand trial. That petition was ultimately denied after an order to show cause (OSC) had been issued, returnable in the Riverside County Superior Court. In 2016, she filed another petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Supreme Court on the same ground, with additional information about her postconviction mental health problems as they related to timeliness. The California Supreme Court again issued an OSC returnable to this court. We grant the petition.

Background ¹

Defendant has a history of mental illness that includes at least one prior hospitalization lasting two years and had manifested itself in violent knife assaults against her husband and her daughter while the family lived in Colorado. After being released from an extended psychiatric hospitalization in Colorado, the family moved to California where defendant practiced immigration law. (People v. Sims, supra, E042064.)

In 2005, when defendant's daughter was home from medical school for the summer, defendant was behaving combatively and secretively, refusing to take her medication. She was suspicious of conspiracies, convinced that she was God's daughter fighting demons, or the daughter of an alien fighting some sort of intergalactic war on earth. She accused her husband of adultery, occult practices, and devil worship. Defendant also accused her husband of carrying on with prostitutes and drugging her at night. She also behaved erratically with her office staff and clients, and sometimes missed court appearances. (People v. Sims, supra, E042064.)

Things came to a head in September 2005, when there was an incident at Lake Evans in Riverside. After the incident, defendant and her husband drove to Blythe, where defendant shot her husband several times, killing him. (People v. Sims, supra, E042064.) A complaint was filed, charging defendant with murder and two firearm enhancements. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a) ; 12022.5, subd. (a); 12022.53, subd. (d).)

On September 29, 2005, the trial court appointed a medical examiner, Dr. Kania, to evaluate defendant, based upon her first appointed counsel declaring a doubt as to her competence. The evaluation, dated November 29, 2005, concluded that defendant was delusional and suffering from either schizoaffective or bipolar disorder, but that she was able to understand the nature of the proceedings and was able to cooperate with the examiner in a rational manner.

Dr. Kania noted that defendant did not trust her attorney based on her belief that counsel thought she was "crazy," which could interfere with her willingness to cooperate with counsel but volunteered that it might not affect her ability to cooperate with another attorney. He concluded she was competent to stand trial but cautioned that her condition could deteriorate if she continued to decline medication. The trial court found defendant competent to stand trial. (People v. Sims, supra, E042064.)

In May 2006, defendant retained Attorney Michael DeFrank to represent her. On or about August 9, 2006, defendant made a motion to represent herself pursuant to Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 because she objected to her attorney's in limine motion to exclude her statements to police The motion, styled as a motion to exclude her confession, was objectionable to defendant because, while defendant admitted she discussed shooting her husband with investigators, she denied it was a "confession." (People v. Sims, supra, E042064.)

Thereafter, Mr. DeFrank was designated advisory counsel, and defendant withdrew in limine motions to exclude defendant's confession and opposing admission of prior similar acts pursuant to Evidence Code, section 1101, subdivision (b). The two prior acts related to a 1992 butcher knife attack on her husband and a 1995 incident in which defendant stabbed her daughter while having delusions about the "Second Coming," explaining she had to stab her daughter to insure the daughter would go to heaven immediately and not suffer. (People v. Sims, supra, E042064.)

Defendant made bizarre statements during the hearing on her request to represent herself and during trial.² In her opening statement, she talked about the Greek word for devil, the biblical story of Jezebel, and described her 25 years of marriage as "very colorful" and "a lot of joy." She denied killing her husband, asserted that he was alive when the coroner's photographs were taken, and proposed he was beaten and murdered by someone else while defendant was in custody. She cross-examined the pathologist about his experience with "[s]atanic ritual killings" and torture. Alternatively, she accused her husband of leading a double life, like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, and claimed he was killed by friends and associates he had known for 15 years. Defendant's children testified that defendant became suspicious and delusional when not taking her medication. (People v. Sims, supra, E042064.)

According to his declaration, Mr. DeFrank noticed that defendant's mental illness had been exacerbated by the stress of trial, and he attempted to inform the court on two separate occasions that he had a doubt as to her competence, but the court would not allow him to speak because he was advisory counsel, only. On August 24, 2006, defendant accused Mr. DeFrank of conspiring with the deputy district attorney and relieved him of further advisory position.

On August 28, 2006, defendant was found guilty of the murder of her husband (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a) ), and the jury made true findings on the gun discharge and gun use allegations (§§ 12022.5, subd. (a), 12022.53, subd. (d) ). The following day, on August 29, 2006, in a case that had been trailing the murder charges, Mr. DeFrank, who represented defendant in the trailing matter, declared a doubt as to defendant's mental condition. Judge Erwood suspended proceedings in that case. On October 25, 2006, Judge Erwood found defendant to be competent to stand trial in the trailing case, but defense counsel requested a trial on the issue, and that request was granted. On January 5, 2007, the People moved to dismiss the charges in the trailing case, before the competency trial was conducted.

Defendant appealed her murder conviction, raising evidentiary, instructional, and sentencing errors. At our request, the parties filed supplemental briefs on the issue of whether defendant was competent to represent herself pursuant to Indiana v. Edwards (2008) 554 U.S. 164, 128 S.Ct. 2379, 171 L.Ed.2d 345. On November 17, 2008, we affirmed in full. On February 25, 2009, the Supreme Court denied review.

On April 12, 2010, defendant filed her first petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court, in propria persona. (In re Sims, S181881, Supreme Ct. Mins., Sept. 14, 2011.) Her petition was accompanied by the declaration of her advisory counsel and a copy of Dr. Kania's evaluation conducted in November 2005. On September 14, 2011, the Supreme Court issued an OSC, returnable to the Riverside Superior Court. The People filed a return in the superior court on March 7, 2012, arguing that the petition was untimely, that the issue of defendant's competence to stand trial had been raised in the direct appeal, and there was substantial evidence to support the trial court's finding defendant was competent. The superior court denied the petition.

On September 14, 2016, defendant filed her second petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court. After soliciting an informal response from the People, the Supreme Court issued an OSC why relief should not be granted, made returnable in this Court.

Discussion

Defendant does not challenge the November 2005 finding by the trial court that defendant was competent to stand trial, following the initial Penal Code section 1368 evaluation. We, therefore do not address the correctness of the initial finding of competence, despite the fact Dr. Kania's opinion was not based on defendant's ability to cooperate with her counsel or her ability to conduct a rational defense. Instead, she argues that the trial court erred in not conducting further proceedings pursuant to Penal Code sections 1367 et seq., between August and December 2006, in the course of defendant's Faretta motion, her self-representation at trial, and the sentencing proceedings.

The People's return incorporates a declaration by defendant's advisory counsel, explaining his thwarted attempts to apprise the trial court of defendant's deteriorated mental state in an effort to have her competence reevaluated. While we addressed a small slice of this issue on direct appeal, limited to her competence to represent herself, we did not address whether defendant's circumstances had changed after the court granted her Faretta motion, such that proceedings should have been suspended for further evaluation.

a. Principles Governing Habeas Corpus Review

1234 Where a reviewing court finds the factual allegations of a habeas petition, taken as true, establish a prima facie case for relief, the court will issue an OSC. (People v. Duvall (1995) 9 Cal.4th 464, 474, 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 259, 886 P.2d 1252 (Duvall ), citing In re...