State v. Allery
| Decision Date | 07 February 2023 |
| Docket Number | DA 21-0308 |
| Citation | 2023 MT 25 |
| Parties | STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. ROBERT LEROY JAMES ALLERY, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
For Appellant:
Chad Wright, Appellate Defender, Michael Marchesini, Assistant Appellate Defender, Helena, Montana
For Appellee:
Austin Knudsen, Montana Attorney General, Christine Hutchison Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Josh Racki, Cascade County Attorney, Carolyn H. Mattingly, Matthew Robinson, Deputy County Attorneys, Great Falls, Montana
¶1 Robert Allery appeals the Eighth Judicial District Court's conclusion that a more than three-year delay between his arrest and trial did not violate his constitutional right to a speedy trial. Allery initially faced a prolonged wait to get a bed at the Montana State Hospital to be evaluated for his mental fitness to stand trial. Once at MSH, Allery's fitness for trial improved but it decompensated after he was sent back to jail and endured another lengthy wait. This decompensation led to a second admission to MSH before the case finally went to trial, at which time Allery was convicted. Upon full review of the record and the District Court's analysis, we conclude that Allery suffered excessive institutional delay that violated his speedy trial right. We accordingly reverse the District Court and vacate Allery's conviction.
¶2 Responding to a 9-1-1 call about an assault, Great Falls police encountered Allery walking in an alley the afternoon of August 4, 2017. Allery wore no shirt or shoes and was carrying a plastic tote lid and a water bottle. He spoke erratically and nonsensically to the police, who booked him into the Cascade County Detention Center. Allery soon after was charged with assault with a weapon, in violation of § 45-5-213(1)(a), MCA.
¶3 The District Court appointed Allery counsel and set trial for November 13, 2017. By early October, however, the prosecutor and defense counsel agreed that Allery needed a mental health evaluation to determine his fitness to stand trial. Allery's counsel moved for an evaluation. On November 29 2017, the court suspended proceedings and ordered an evaluation. The order directed the Cascade County Sheriff to transfer Allery to MSH as soon as there was an opening. MSH was to accept and care for Allery for up to 60 days and to report its findings regarding his fitness to proceed and whether medications would be helpful.
¶4 MSH did not have an opening for more than eight months. Allery spent that time waiting in the county jail, where the record does not indicate he had access to a medication assessment or mental health treatment. Allery at last was transferred to MSH on August 8, 2018. Allery faced further delays once he arrived. When the 60-day evaluation period was almost up, the State moved for an extension, citing MSH staffing shortages. The court granted the State another month. When that month was up, the State again requested, and the court again granted, an extension due to MSH staffing shortages.
¶5 MSH completed Allery's first fitness evaluation on December 10, 2018-more than a year after the court had ordered it. The MSH evaluation concluded that Allery was not fit to proceed with trial because he was unable to understand the case against him or to assist his attorney. Evaluators determined that Allery was suffering from a psychotic disorder and prescribed him an antipsychotic medication. They predicted that continued treatment could facilitate Allery's fitness for trial. The court accordingly suspended criminal proceedings and committed Allery to MSH to regain fitness.
¶6 Following several months of treatment, Allery was evaluated a second time in March 2019. MSH evaluators again concluded that Allery's psychotic symptoms impaired his fitness to proceed. Allery had started to refuse his medication in late December 2018, complaining about side effects. In consultation with Allery, his psychiatrist increased the medication's dosage and ordered an observation protocol to ensure Allery was taking his medication. MSH evaluators predicted that more care would lead to fitness "in the near future." Evaluators also concluded, based on the available evidence, that Allery had been acutely psychotic at the time of the alleged assault, suggesting that he was unable to appreciate the criminality of his conduct and conform his conduct to the requirement of the law.
¶7 When they evaluated him for the third time two months later, evaluators found Allery fit. Allery could speak rationally about his case and appeared able to assist his counsel. Since the last evaluation, Allery had chosen to discontinue all medication, citing negative side effects. Nevertheless, evaluators stated that his energy level had improved, that he had not voiced delusional beliefs, and that he had not demonstrated grossly psychotic symptoms. Allery agreed that although he would prefer to try to avoid taking medication, he would accept medication if he began to decompensate. MSH's fitness determination was cautious given that Allery still was suffering from a psychotic disorder. Evaluators stated,
¶8 On June 12, 2019, the District Court held a hearing discussing Allery's recent fitness. Despite evaluators' recommendation that Allery remain at MSH for monitoring and treatment, the court ordered Allery back to jail. The judge stated that he had it "on good authority" that MSH could use an extra bed, and the prosecutor agreed to arrange transport. Allery's trial was set for October 15, 2019. In late September, the State moved to continue the trial, citing a conflicting trial commitment. The court granted the continuance and reset trial for late January 2020. Throughout this six-month period, Allery remained in jail. Just before trial, Allery's counsel requested another mental health evaluation, and a private evaluator determined that Allery once again was unfit to proceed with trial.
¶9 The court ordered Allery back to MSH. MSH staff described Allery at the time of his readmission as thin, pale, hyperverbal, perseverative, and delusional. Evaluators described how Allery's condition had deteriorated during his six months in jail, in part due to his not taking his prescribed psychiatric medication. Allery was prescribed a new psychiatric medication and was provided treatment. By April 2020, MSH evaluators found Allery fit again, but strongly urged the court to keep Allery at MSH until his court date so he could maintain clinical stability. They stated, "We are concerned that returning him to jail prematurely might cause his condition to deteriorate; a resurgence of his psychotic symptoms might once again impair his fitness to proceed with this case."
¶10 This time, the court allowed Allery to stay at MSH, and Allery maintained fitness. Allery's trial was rescheduled from July 6, 2020, to August 31, 2020, and, finally, to October 26, 2020. These continuances were for various reasons, such as prosecutorial military leave, evidentiary disputes, and a COVID lockdown at the jail preventing transport. After the court granted a continuance to August 31, Allery moved to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial. The parties briefed the motion, and it remained pending.
¶11 Beginning October 26, 2020, the court held a three-day trial. A Cascade County jury found Allery guilty of assault with a weapon. Due to Allery's previous decompensation at the jail, the court sent Allery to MSH pending sentencing. Allery's presentence investigation report included a recent MSH evaluation reaffirming that Allery's psychotic symptoms at the time of his crime rendered him unable to appreciate the criminality of his behavior and to conform his behavior to the requirements of the law. See § 46-14-311, MCA. MSH evaluators and the report thus recommended Allery be committed to the Department of Public Health and Human Services, with an initial placement at the MSH forensic facility so that he could continue to benefit "from the stability and support offered by an inpatient facility." Following their recommendation, the judge committed Allery to the Montana Hospital-Galen (the site of MSH's forensic facility) to serve a twenty-year term, with ten years suspended.
¶12 On the same day as sentencing, the District Court addressed Allery's motion to dismiss for lack of speedy trial. The court found a delay of 1,179 days-over 800 of which the court determined was institutional delay. The court "lightly" attributed this institutional delay to the State. The court also found that Allery had "serious psychological disorders that benefited from institutional care but were not aided by incarceration." The court determined that Allery's two stays at MSH had somewhat mitigated the effect of substantial pre-trial delay. Finally, the court appeared to find no explicit objections by Allery to the delay but did note that Allery had "expressed feelings of anxiety related to the delay." Balancing these various findings, the court concluded that Allery's right to a speedy trial was not violated.
¶13 We review de novo a trial court's conclusion about whether a criminal defendant's speedy trial right was violated. State v. Chambers, 2020 MT 271, ¶ 6 402 Mont. 25, 474 P.3d 1268. We review for clear error the factual...
To continue reading
Request your trial