Moten v. Com.

• Decision Date: 06 December 1988
• Docket Number: No. 0339-87-4,0339-87-4
• Citation: Moten v. Com., 374 S.E.2d 704, 7 Va.App. 438 (Va. App. 1988)
• Parties: William Edward MOTEN v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia. Record
• Court: Virginia Court of Appeals

Page 704

374 S.E.2d 704

7 Va.App. 438

William Edward MOTEN v.COMMONWEALTH of Virginia.

Record No. 0339-87-4.

Court of Appeals of Virginia.

Dec. 6, 1988.

N. Randolph Bryant, John R. Prosser(Prosser, Parthemos & Bryant, Winchester, on brief) for appellant.

Jim L. Chin, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Mary Sue Terry, Atty. Gen., M. Katharine Spong, Asst. Atty. Gen., on brief) for appellee.

Present: BARROW, DUFF and KEENAN, JJ.

DUFF, Judge.

William Edward Moten appeals his conviction of second degree murder for which he was sentenced, in accordance with the jury's recommendation, to ten years in the penitentiary.He contends that he was denied his rights to a speedy trial under Code§ 19.2-243 as well as under the sixth amendment to the United States Constitutionandarticle I, section 8 of the Virginia Constitution.We disagree with these contentions and affirm Moten's conviction.

I.THE FACTS

The accused was arrested on November 19, 1985 on a direct indictment by the grand jury.The subsequent chronology of events is crucial to our inquiry.After his arrest, the defendant informed the courthe was indigent, and counsel was appointed.On January 2, 1986, a "Motion for Psychiatric Evaluation and Observation" was filed in the clerk's office by defense counsel.An evidentiary hearing and argument on the motion was held January 6, 1986, at which time the court found probable cause and orally ordered that the defendant's sanity at the time of the offense be evaluated by a psychiatrist or psychologist with a doctoral degree in clinical psychology.The written order exemplifying this holding was entered February 4, 1986.

Moten was then evaluated in jail on two occasions by David Wimberly, Ph.D., of Northwest Community Services.In a report written on February 12, 1986, Dr. Wimberly stated that he had been requested by the court to evaluate both the defendant's mental state at the time of the offense and his competency to stand trial.Pertinent to our inquiry, the report contained inter alia, the following observations:

Mr. Moten was quite unwilling to talk with me. ...Mr. Moten was seen twice and on neither occasion was he willing to participate adequately in the interview....I do not feel that I am in a position to make much of a statement about his mental state at the time of the offense.I have written a letter to the defense attorneys in this regard, and they may wish to pursue this matter further....I was not able to proceed with the standard interview....The only significant issues were his unwillingness to participate in the forensic evaluation and his distrust of his attorneys.

Dr. Wimberly also reported that it might be advisable to consider a further evaluation of Moten in an inpatient setting.The report was not stamped as received by the clerk's office until February 20, 1986.

On March 26, 1986, defense counsel moved the court to send Moten to Central State Hospital"for the purpose of conducting further examination and evaluation" of his competency to stand trial and competency at the time of the offense.Counsel supported the motion by attaching a copy of a letter from Dr. Wimberly to him dated February 12, 1986, wherein such suggestion was made.A hearing on this motion was held April 8, 1986, the first day the court sat after filing.The motion was orally granted.A written order was entered on April 18, 1986 referring Moten to Central State Hospital.For reasons not entirely clear in the record, a supplemental order containing more specific directions regarding the terms of his admission was entered on May 15, 1986.The accused was then admitted and evaluated by James C. Dimitris, M.D., and William M. Lee, Ph.D.Their joint report was filed with the courtJune 25, 1986, finding Moten both competent to stand trial and sane at the time of the offense.

On July 1, 1986, an order was entered for Moten's return from Central State Hospital to the Frederick County jail.He was arraigned July 14, 1986, and scheduled for trial on August 25, 1986.On August 22, 1986, a motion to dismissthe prosecution for violation of Moten's speedy trial rights was filed.The motion was argued on August 25, 1986, and was denied, with the trial commencing immediately thereafter.The defendant remained in custody continuously from the time of his arrest until his trial, a total of 279 days.

II.THE STATUTORY CLAIM

Code 19.2-243(1)¹ provides that "... the accused, if he is held continuously in custody shall be forever discharged from prosecution for such offense if there be no trial commenced in the circuit court within five months from the date such probable cause was found by the district court...."In this case, both indictment and arrest occurred on November 19, 1985.The five month period is computed as 152 and a fraction days.In Virginia an affirmative duty rests on the Commonwealth to bring about a speedy trial, and an accused may stand mute without waiving his rights so long as his actions do not constitute a concurrency in or necessitate a delay of the trial.Godfrey v. Commonwealth, 227 Va. 460, 463, 317 S.E.2d 781, 783(1984);Walker v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 5, 9, 301 S.E.2d 28, 30(1983).Further, when a defendant asserts that he has been denied a speedy trial the burden is on the Commonwealth to satisfactorily explain the delay.Godfrey, 227 Va. at 463, 317 S.E.2d at 782.Finally, the statute sets forth five circumstances or exceptions that excuse the failure to bring an accused to trial within the prescribed time limits.Code§ 19.2-243(1) excuses failure to try an accused who is insane or confined in a hospital for care and observation.These five circumstances are not all inclusive; others of a similar nature are implied.Stephens v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 224, 230, 301 S.E.2d 22, 25(1983);Cantwell v. Commonwealth, 2 Va.App. 606, 610, 347 S.E.2d 523, 525(1986).The exceptions, both express and implied, often look to the defendant's actions that tend to delay the trial.Cantwell, 2 Va.App. at 610, 347 S.E.2d at 525;Stephens, 225 Va. at 231-32, 301 S.E.2d at 25-26;Butts v. Commonwealth, 145 Va. 800, 807, 133 S.E. 764, 766(1926).

In Stephens our Supreme Court held that, although the defendant did not move for a continuance, he was responsible for the delay because he filed a motion to suppress, thus becoming "the moving party in the proceeding, which necessitated the continuance."225 Va. at 233-234, 301 S.E.2d at 27.The court further stated:

When the defendant filed his motion to suppresshe was not asking for a speedy trial.It was an act which necessitated a slow-down of the judicial process.What the defendant desired was favorable action on this motion and dismissal of the prosecution.At that stage, defendant did not seek a trial on the merits of his case but rather a final disposition of the case on his pretrial motion.Obviously he was pinning all his hopes on the strength of his arguments, oral and written, made to the trial judge in support of his motion to suppress, and he did not want precipitate action.He wanted careful consideration by the Court.

Id. at 233, 301 S.E.2d at 27.

In Cantwell, we refused to allow a defendant to take advantage of the delay necessitated by his filing of six motions with over thirty pages of supporting memoranda just two weeks before trial.He was held responsible for the delay occasioned by the need for the court to consider the motions.Therefore, Cantwell's prosecution was not barred by Code§ 19.2-243.

To explain the delay of the trial from the statutory limit of 152 days to 279 days, the Commonwealth contends that the time between the filing of the defendant's first motion for a psychological evaluation on January 2, 1986 until the second psychological report was received by the court on June 25, 1986(174 days), should properly be attributable to the defendant.Excluding such time from the total delay of 279 days leaves 105 days chargeable to the Commonwealth, well within the 152 days allowed by statute.

The defendant contends that various portions of the 174 days from January 2, 1986 to June 25, 1986 should not be chargeable against him.He argues that, while his first motion for evaluation was orally granted on January 2, 1986, the written order was not entered by the court until February 4, 1986, thirty-three days later.Upon the first evaluation being received by the court on February 20, 1986, the Commonwealth took no action to expedite the matter on the docket and an additional thirty-four days elapsed before defense counsel filed his second motion for an evaluation; the second motion was argued and granted on April 8, 1986, but it took two orders to effect Moten's transfer to the hospital (the second being entered May 15, 1986, thirty-seven days after April 8, 1986).

The Commonwealth contended at trial and on appeal that the delay in the entry of orders was not unreasonable, considering that there was no resident circuit judge in Clarke County.It argues further that the defendant was free to draft and submit orders but did not do so.In any event, the Commonwealth asserts that the drafting and entering of the orders in question were the direct result of the defendant's motion for a psychological evaluation.

As we view the record, it is clear that the sole reason Dr. Wimberly could not reach a conclusion about Moten's sanity at the time of the offense was Moten's failure to cooperate.The doctor suggested in-patient evaluation at Central State Hospital in the hope that the accused might get to know and feel more comfortable with the examiners.Thus, upon receipt of Dr. Wimberly's report, the issue of Moten's sanity was unresolved.The court, having previously found probable cause to believe that mental disease may have affected Moten's actions at the time of the offense, could not proceed with trial until this issue had been finally determined.

The motion in the first instance was brought by the defendant.It was for his benefit.It...