People v. Zimmer
| Decision Date | 01 April 2021 |
| Docket Number | Court of Appeals No. 18CA0284 |
| Citation | 491 P.3d 554 |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patrick Mitchell ZIMMER, Defendant-Appellant. |
Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Frank R. Lawson, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Patrick R. Henson, Alternate Defense Counsel, Denver, Colorado, Defendant-Appellant
Opinion by JUDGE PAWAR
¶ 1 Defendant, Patrick Mitchell Zimmer, appeals the judgment of conviction and sentence entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of stalking. We affirm his conviction. But we conclude that the trial court's error of declining to order a competency evaluation between trial and sentencing created a reasonable possibility that Zimmer was sentenced while incompetent to proceed. We therefore vacate Zimmer's sentence and remand the case to the trial court with directions.
¶ 2 Zimmer sought to initiate a romantic relationship with the victim, a woman he had known for years. After rebuffing his advances, the victim told Zimmer to stop contacting her or she would call the police. Zimmer did not stop and instead sent her dozens of text messages over the course of two days, some of which threatened that he would rape and kill her.
¶ 3 The next week, Zimmer came to the front door of the victim's house. When the victim cracked the door to see who was there, she saw Zimmer holding a bag. She immediately closed the door and locked it, and Zimmer left the bag hanging on the door. The bag contained a knife and folder with the following words written on it:
¶ 4 The prosecution charged Zimmer with stalking and another offense that was ultimately dismissed. At a pretrial readiness conference about a month before trial, when asked by the court if he was ready to proceed to trial, defense counsel informed the court that he had new concerns about Zimmer's competency and wished to discuss those concerns with Zimmer before affirming that he was ready for trial. The court therefore scheduled another pretrial readiness conference for about two weeks before trial. At that next pretrial readiness conference, neither defense counsel nor the court raised Zimmer's competency.
¶ 5 At trial, the evidence included the dozens of texts Zimmer sent the victim. The victim also testified. The jury found Zimmer guilty of stalking.
¶ 6 In between trial and sentencing, defense counsel filed a formal competency motion. In it, defense counsel stated that before and during trial, Zimmer seemed competent. But after trial, Zimmer began insisting that the person who testified as the victim at trial was an imposter. Based on this insistence, defense counsel's motion stated that he had a good faith doubt about Zimmer's competency.
¶ 7 The trial court denied the motion, finding that Zimmer was competent to proceed to sentencing. Defense counsel objected to the court's competency finding and argued that the objection triggered a mandatory competency evaluation under section 16-8.5-103(2), C.R.S. 2020. The trial court disagreed, ruling that section 16-8.5-103(2) did not apply because the motion "failed to establish, or even allege, that [Zimmer] was incompetent as that term is defined in [the relevant statute]." The court then sentenced Zimmer to four years’ imprisonment followed by two years of mandatory parole.
¶ 8 Zimmer appeals. He argues that the trial court erred by failing to order a competency evaluation before trial or, alternatively, between trial and sentencing. He also challenges the trial court's ruling on a discovery violation. We first disagree with Zimmer's challenge to the discovery violation ruling. We then address his competency evaluation arguments. Although we find no error in the trial court's pretrial competency ruling, we conclude that the trial court erred by not ordering a competency evaluation between trial and sentencing.
¶ 9 Zimmer contends that the prosecution failed to disclose an exhibit to the defense before introducing it at trial. And he argues that the trial court erred by failing to find that the prosecution's failure to disclose it constituted a discovery violation. He further argues that this error violated his constitutional right to due process.
¶ 10 We review a trial court's discovery violation ruling for an abuse of discretion.
See People v. White , 64 P.3d 864, 874 (Colo. App. 2002). If a trial court abused its discretion and that error violated a defendant's constitutional rights, we will reverse unless the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See People v. Hagos , 2012 CO 63, ¶ 11, 288 P.3d 116. An error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt if the properly admitted evidence overwhelmingly establishes the defendant's guilt. See People v. Phillips , 2012 COA 176, ¶ 149, 315 P.3d 136.
¶ 11 Based on the record, it is unclear when or if the prosecution disclosed the contested exhibit to the defense. But even assuming that (1) the prosecution failed to disclose it, (2) the trial court erred by failing to find that a discovery violation had taken place, and (3) that error violated Zimmer's constitutional right to due process, we conclude that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The properly admitted evidence of Zimmer's guilt was overwhelming.
¶ 12 Zimmer was convicted of stalking under section 18-3-602(1)(c), C.R.S. 2020. This offense required the prosecution to establish that he (1) knowingly repeatedly followed, approached, contacted, placed under surveillance, or made any form of communication with the victim that would cause a reasonable person to suffer serious emotional distress; and (2) actually caused the victim to suffer serious emotional distress. Id.
¶ 13 The contested exhibit was a thirty-two-second video that Zimmer sent the victim. The video consisted of a closeup of Zimmer's face and head and an unintelligible statement. It was just one of many dozens of messages Zimmer sent the victim after she told him to stop contacting her. The contested video may have been threatening when considered in the context of the communication between Zimmer and victim. But other messages whose admission Zimmer does not challenge were undoubtedly and explicitly threatening. One stated, Another, "I'm going to come in there and rape your fucking face." And another,
¶ 14 The victim testified that she was terrified and upset by Zimmer's messages. She also testified that these messages culminated with Zimmer showing up at her house and leaving a bag with a knife and a cryptic note hanging on her door.
¶ 15 The single contested video notwithstanding, the dozens of properly admitted messages and the victim's testimony overwhelmingly established that Zimmer was guilty of stalking. We therefore conclude that any error in failing to rule that the prosecution had committed a discovery violation or impose sanctions for that violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
¶ 16 Zimmer also argues that the trial court erred by failing to stay the proceedings and order a competency evaluation before trial and between trial and sentencing. We disagree that a competency evaluation was required before trial. But we agree with Zimmer that the trial court erred by failing to order one between trial and sentencing. And we conclude that this error requires us to vacate Zimmer's sentence and remand for further proceedings.
or developmental disability, the defendant does not have sufficient present ability to consult with the defendant's lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding in order to assist in the defense, or ..., as a result of a mental disability or developmental disability, the defendant does not have a rational and factual understanding of the criminal proceedings.
§ 16-8.5-101(12), C.R.S. 2020.
¶ 18 The procedures courts must follow to determine a defendant's competency are set out in sections 16-8.5-102 and - 103. A defendant's competency can be raised in only two ways. § 16-8.5-102(2). First, it can be raised by the trial court. "If the judge has reason to believe that the defendant is incompetent to proceed, it is the judge's duty to suspend the proceeding and determine the competency or incompetency of the defendant ...." § 16-8.5-102(2)(a). Second, either defense counsel or the prosecutor can file a motion if either has reason to believe the defendant is incompetent. § 16-8.5-102(2)(b). The motion must (1) be written; (2) "contain a certificate of counsel stating that the motion is based on a good faith doubt that the defendant is competent to proceed"; and (3) "set forth the specific facts that have formed the basis for the motion." Id.
¶ 19 Once the defendant's competency is raised in one of these two ways, the court may make a preliminary finding of competency or incompetency. § 16-8.5-103(1)(a). If the court determines that it has insufficient information to make a preliminary finding, it "shall" order a competency evaluation. § 16-8.5-103(2). Likewise, the court "shall" order a competency evaluation if the court makes a preliminary finding and either party objects to it within seven days. Id.
¶ 20 In People v. Lindsey , 2020 CO 21, 459 P.3d 530, our supreme court clarified the scope of the trial court's discretion to determine whether a written competency motion validly raises the issue of a defendant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Rodriguez
...without complying with these threshold requirements. Lindsey II , ¶ 22, 459 P.3d at 535 ; see People v. Zimmer , 2021 COA 40, ¶ 20, 491 P.3d 554, 558 ("[T]he facts set forth in the [competency] motion must actually support a good faith doubt about the defendant's competency. If the asserted......