Sibug v. State

• Decision Date: 25 November 2015
• Docket Number: No. 2, Sept. Term, 2015.,2, Sept. Term, 2015.
• Citation: 126 A.3d 86,445 Md. 265
• Parties: Mario SIBUG v. STATE of Maryland.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

445 Md. 265

126 A.3d 86

Mario SIBUG

v.STATE of Maryland.

No. 2, Sept. Term, 2015.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Nov. 25, 2015.

Brian L. Zavin, Assistant Public Defender (Paul B. DeWolfe, Public Defender of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Petitioner.

Mary Ann Ince, Assistant Attorney General (Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Respondent.

Argued before: BARBERA, C.J., BATTAGLIA, GREENE, ADKINS, McDONALD, WATTS and GLENN T. HARRELL, JR., (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.

BATTAGLIA, J.

In the instant case,¹ we must address the quagmire that results from a defendant in a criminal case having been adjudicated incompetent, then eight years later being tried and convicted in the same case without having been adjudged competent to stand trial.²

We shall hold that the court erred by failing to make a judicial determination of Sibug's competency pursuant to Section 3–104 of the Criminal Procedure Article and also clearly erred, during sentencing, in finding Sibug competent to stand trial.³

In 1999, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Mario Sibug, Petitioner, was charged with three counts of first degree assault, two counts of second degree assault, three counts of reckless endangerment, one count of allowing minors access to a firearm and one count of the use of a gun in the commission of a crime of violence. The charges against Sibug arose from an incident in 1998, when, according to charging documents, Sibug pointed a handgun at his five children and threatened to kill them.

Prior to trial in 1999, Sibug entered pleas of not guilty, not competent to stand trial and not criminally responsible. The judge ordered that Sibug be examined by the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene to determine if he were "incompetent to stand trial pursuant to Health–General 12–101(d)."⁴ After Sibug was evaluated at Clifton T. Perkins Hospital, the Department, in a letter to the court dated December 7, 1999, opined that Sibug was not competent to stand trial because of his "religious delusions" and inability to "separate man-made law from 'God's moral law' ":

The defendant is Not Competent to Stand Trial. The defendant demonstrated a factual understanding of the court system. However, his appreciation of the proceedings and his ability to assist in his own defense is significantly impaired by his psychosis. His religious delusions have led the defendant to believe that the judicial system and its agents are "of Satan." As a result, he believes he cannot receive a fair trial and he will not assist an attorney who does not have the same religious beliefs.

The defendant does not accurately appreciate the proceedings against him. The defendant cannot separate man-made law from "God's moral law." Consequently, he does not believe that his situation is simply a criminal prosecution; but rather, a struggle between the "righteous" and the "wicked." This belief has impaired his ability to rationally weigh the advantages and the disadvantages of a plea bargain. He refuses to consider a plea bargain because "it would be succumbing to the forces of evil." He would rather be imprisoned for life or executed than betray his "righteous faith in the one true God." Furthermore, he intends to use a legal defense based upon Biblical scripture and "God's truth" rather than developing evidence to contest the facts of the case.

The defendant's alleged offenses were of a serious nature. His threats and behaviors indicate a significant potential for life threatening violence. This occurred in the setting of his displeasure with his children for lack of discipline. His recent onset of religious and paranoid delusions has intensified his negative feelings and thoughts toward his children. He now considers them "devils." Consequently, his risk for harming his children has intensified. The defendant is dangerous.

In January of 2000, the Circuit Court issued a "Finding of Incompetency and Order of Commitment" that stated:

Upon evidence presented that Mario Sibug is not able to understand the nature or object of the proceeding or to assist in the defense, this Court finds that Mario Sibug is presently incompetent to stand trial, and

Upon evidence presented that because of mental disorder, Mario Sibug is a danger to self of the person or property of others, it is

ORDERED, this 10th day of January, 2000, that Mario Sibug shall be committed to the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene for inpatient care and treatment until this Court is satisfied that Mario Sibug is no longer incompetent to stand trial or no longer is, because of mental retardation or mental disorder, a danger to self or the person or property of others.

Sibug remained at Perkins; by April, 2000, the Department had re-evaluated him and concluded that he was competent to stand trial because he was able "to distinguish between 'moral law' and 'man's law,' " although his "delusions" persisted:

Mario Sibug has a good understanding of the court system. He correctly identified the roles of the judge, jury, State's Attorney, and defense attorney. He offered that the three pleas available to him were guilty, not guilty, and not criminally responsible. The defendant also articulated an understanding of the concept of plea bargaining. In addition, the defendant correctly identified the charges against him and assessed them as "severe."

The defendant stated that it was his intention to plead not guilty. He stated that he would not plea bargain because he believed that it would be an admission of guilt for something he did not do. The defendant stated that he continues to believe that he is the "righteous one" in this case and that the complaining witnesses are "wicked." However, he recognized that despite this belief he could be found guilty and convicted. The defendant stated that he would be willing to accept that outcome if that was determined by the jury on interpretation of the facts of the case.

The defendant's previous beliefs on admission that the judicial system and its agents were "Satan" have resolved. The defendant currently demonstrates an ability to distinguish between "moral law" and "man's law." Moreover, the defendant no longer believes that he requires a Christian attorney in order to receive a fair trial since the outcome will be based on the evidence. The defendant demonstrated an understanding that the outcome of his case will be determined by a dispute over the facts. The defendant can now rationally weigh the advantages and disadvantages of various defenses. The defendant stated that he could work with a defense attorney who was ethical, hard working, and seriously interested in representing him.

The defendant continues to lack insight regarding past and present delusional beliefs and has remained unwilling to accept treatment. Despite this, the defendant's delusional beliefs no longer rise to the level of impairing his ability to understand the nature or object of the proceedings; or to assist in his defense. The defendant is competent to stand trial.

After the letter was docketed, trial was set for August of 2000.

On August 1, 2000, however, the Department sent another letter to the Circuit Court opining that Sibug's condition had deteriorated and that he was not competent to stand trial. Although a full evaluation was not attached, in a follow-up letter to the court in October of 2000 the Department stated that "[g]iven his persisting delusions, his lack of insight, and emotional lability, Mr. Sibug is unable to understand the nature and the object of the proceedings against him":

In his previous evaluation, Mr. Sibug was deemed competent to stand trial because he understood the nature and quality of the legal proceedings, and demonstrated the ability to assist a lawyer in his defense. In his most recent competency monitoring evaluation, however, his mental state showed a return of psychotic symptoms.

Mr. Sibug demonstrated a basic understanding of the court system and the charges against him. He correctly identified the role of the judge, State's Attorney, defense attorney, and jury. He described Guilty, Not Guilty, and Not Criminally Responsible as available pleas. Further, he correctly listed the charges against him, and their severity. He understood the use of plea-bargaining to mitigate punishment.

Despite his understanding of these abstractions, Mr. Sibug's religious and paranoid delusions prevented their application to his legal circumstances. For instance, he believed that his attorney was in league with his children and Satan. He stated that he was a "righteous man" like Noah, Abraham and Moses, and that these charges are meant to "test his faith in God," not to punish him for wrongdoing. He believed to plead Guilty or Not Criminally Responsible would result in rejecting God. When asked about his role in the alleged offenses, he answered with a litany of Biblical scriptures. When directed to answer in his own words, he became agitated and spewed forth more scripture.

Given his persisting delusions, his lack of insight, and emotional lability, Mr. Sibug is unable to understand the nature and the object of the proceedings against him; he is unable to assist in his defense. His history of acting violently in response to these delusions makes him a high risk for dangerousness to self and to others.

With full participation in treatment, Mr. Sibug is expected to achieve competency in the foreseeable future. His refusal to take medications is a major hurdle in the pathway to regaining competency to stand trial. Mr. Sibug would be expected to achieve competency once he becomes compliant with medications.

Thereafter, the Department periodically sent annual letters and evaluations to the Circuit Court indicating that Sibug remained incompetent.⁵

In 2003, the Department reflected that, "Sibug recently [has] been receiving medications involuntarily under a Clinical Review Panel and has improved with treatment" and "requested that the court make a...