State v. Brown

Citation517 S.W.3d 617
Decision Date31 January 2017
Docket NumberNo. ED 103366,ED 103366
Parties STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Calvin BROWN, Appellant.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)

Mary D. Fox, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.

Chris Koster, Attorney General, Christine K. Lesicko, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.

ROBERT M. CLAYTON III, Presiding Judge

Calvin Brown ("Defendant") appeals the judgment entered after a bench trial convicting him of first-degree murder and armed criminal action for his alleged role in knowingly causing the death of his grandmother Clara Little ("Grandmother") on November 11, 2008, by stabbing her and cutting her throat through the knowing use, assistance, and aid of a dangerous instrument. Because we find the trial court committed reversible error in denying Defendant's pre-trial motion for a continuance, we reverse and remand for a new trial.

I. BACKGROUND

Defendant was charged with the above crimes on November 12, 2008. In large part due to the repeated concerns of Defendant's attorneys and trial judges as to whether Defendant had a mental illness that rendered him incompetent to proceed to trial, this case has a lengthy procedural posture, with multiple trial judges presiding over the case.1

A. Events Which Occurred Prior to Defendant's Pre–Trial Motion for a Continuance

The following events occurred prior to Defendant's pre-trial motion for a continuance. Defendant's family attempted to hire private counsel for Defendant, but he refused to talk with counsel and his family did not have the necessary funds. At the request of Defendant's family, an attorney from the Missouri State Public Defender's Office ("Public Defender's Office") submitted the necessary paperwork for Defendant to be represented. After Defendant was found to be eligible for services from the Public Defender's Office, a public defender briefly entered her appearance for Defendant and Defendant, by and through counsel, entered a plea of not guilty. Subsequently, the original public defender withdrew her appearance and public defender Srikant Chigurupati ("Mr. Chigurupati") entered his appearance for Defendant on February 25, 2009.

On April 26, 2010, the Honorable Steven R. Ohmer ("Judge Ohmer") issued an order for a mental health evaluation pursuant to section 552.020 RSMo 20002 to determine if Defendant was competent to proceed to trial. Because Defendant refused to participate in an outpatient mental health evaluation, Judge Ohmer issued an order on June 11, 2010 committing Defendant to Fulton State Hospital ("Fulton") for an inpatient mental health evaluation pursuant to section 552.020 RSMo 2000.

Defendant subsequently participated in an inpatient mental health evaluation with Dr. Jeffrey Kline ("Dr. Kline"), a licensed psychologist and certified forensic examiner at Fulton. On August 31, 2010, Dr. Kline issued a written report in which he concluded:

It is clear that [Defendant's] current delusional beliefs would severely interfere with his capacity to comprehend advice by counsel, participate in planning his defense, or reasonably appraise outcomes and implications of plea bargains or other issues involving his case .... [I]t is clear that [Defendant] lacks the capacity to understand the proceedings against him and lacks the capacity to assist in his own defense as a result of his mental disease or defect, [p]sychotic [d]isorder [n]ot [o]therwise [s]pecified.

Based on Dr. Kline's August 31, 2010 report, which was filed with the court, Judge Ohmer entered an order on October 12, 2010 finding Defendant was not competent to proceed to trial and committing Defendant to the custody of the Missouri Department of Mental Health ("Department of Mental Health").

Due to Defendant's continuing lack of cooperation with health care personnel at Fulton who were attempting to complete an updated evaluation of Defendant's mental condition, the Honorable John F. Garvey, Jr. ("Judge Garvey") entered an order on June 22, 2011 authorizing Dr. Kline to interview witnesses in Defendant's case. Although Defendant was generally uncooperative in his interviews with Dr. Kline, Dr. Kline issued a report dated July 15, 2011 concluding it was unlikely Defendant was still suffering from a mental disease or defect and that Defendant was no longer incompetent to understand the proceedings against him or to assist in his defense. Based on Dr. Kline's July 15, 2011 report, which was filed with the court, Judge Garvey issued an order on August 15, 2011, (1) finding Defendant was competent to proceed to trial; and (2) ordering Defendant to be discharged from the Department of Mental Health and returned to the City of St. Louis Justice Center for criminal proceedings to be resumed.

On December 7, 2011, Defendant's counsel, Mr. Chigurupati, filed a motion to again have Defendant evaluated for competency pursuant to section 552.020 RSMo Supp. 2012,3 alleging "[D]efendant continue[d] to exhibit behavior that makes him seem incompetent." The Honorable Philip D. Heagney ("Judge Heagney") held a hearing on the motion on February 23, 2012. Defendant was initially present at the hearing, but he was escorted out of the courtroom after he would not respond to any of Judge Heagney's questions. A deputy sheriff with the City of St. Louis Sheriff's Office who had transported Defendant to court hearings, Mr. Chigurupati's supervisor, and Dr. John Rabun ("Dr. Rabun") testified at the February 2012 hearing. The deputy sheriff testified he witnessed Defendant refuse to answer any questions from Mr. Chigurupati and his supervisor. Mr. Chigurupati's supervisor testified she had concerns Defendant was not competent to proceed to trial, in part because she observed him urinating in front of her and "go from screaming wildly to laughing." Finally, Dr. Rabun testified he had attempted to interview Defendant two times, at the request of the defense, to evaluate Defendant's competency and responsibility pursuant to section 552.020 and section 552.030 RSMo Supp. 2012,4 but he was unable to conduct those evaluations because Defendant would not come out of his cell and refused to participate. At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Heagney agreed Defendant should again be evaluated for competency, and on March 5, 2012, Judge Heagney issued an order for another mental health evaluation pursuant to section 552.020 to determine if Defendant was competent to proceed to trial.

On May 22, 2012, Drs. Rachael Springman and Bridget Graham, licensed psychologists with the Department of Mental Health, advised Judge Heagney that Defendant would not cooperate in an outpatient mental health evaluation and requested Defendant be hospitalized at Fulton to undergo an inpatient mental health evaluation. Judge Heagney ordered Defendant to be returned to Fulton, and Dr. Kline again attempted to evaluate Defendant. Dr. Kline issued a report dated August 10, 2012, finding in relevant part, "[Defendant] refused to speak to the examiner during the course of his current examination ... There is no evidence that [Defendant] is currently suffering from a mental disease or defect that would interfere with his capacity to understand the proceedings against him or his capacity to assist in his own defense." Based on Dr. Kline's August 10, 2012 report, which was filed with the court, Judge Heagney entered an order on August 31, 2012 finding Defendant was competent to proceed to trial.

On September 11, 2012, Defendant's counsel, Mr. Chigurupati, filed a motion to withdraw himself and the entire Public Defender's Office from Defendant's case. The motion alleged Defendant would not cooperate or communicate with Mr. Chigurupati, and therefore, counsel was unable to effectively represent Defendant. Judge Heagney conducted a hearing on the motion to withdraw on October 18, 2012. At the hearing, Defendant responded to some of Judge Heagney's questions, informing the judge he did not have or need a lawyer to represent him, he did not want to represent himself, and he did not want to participate in his trial. Judge Heagney subsequently issued an order on January 30, 2013 denying Mr. Chigurupati's motion to withdraw.

The next day, public defender Mary Fox ("Ms. Fox") filed a request for leave to substitute her appearance as counsel for Defendant and to withdraw the appearance of Mr. Chigurupati because he was leaving the Trial Division of the Public Defender's Office. The trial court granted the motion.

On February 11, 2013, Ms. Fox filed a motion requesting a hearing on Defendant's behalf pursuant to section 552.020, alleging she believed Defendant was not competent to proceed to trial. The motion set out the lack of contact between Defendant and all of his assigned attorneys, specifically alleging that since Mr. Chigurupati's entry of appearance in February 2009, Defendant had only met with Mr. Chigurupati one time other than when he had been brought to court.

The Honorable Bryan L. Hettenbach ("Judge Hettenbach") granted Ms. Fox's motion to have Defendant evaluated for competency under section 552.020, and Judge Hettenbach conducted a competency hearing on March 5, 2013. Defendant did not attend the hearing, and Ms. Fox told the court she had never been able to talk to Defendant because he refused to speak with her at all of her attempted visits. In addition, Dr. Kline and Mr. Chigurupati testified at the March 2013 hearing. Dr. Kline testified about the report issued in August 2010 where he found Defendant was not competent and the reports issued in July 2011 and August 2012 where he found Defendant was competent. During his testimony, Dr. Kline admitted Defendant cooperated most in his evaluation which led to the first, August 2010 report, and that was the only time Dr. Kline had received detailed information regarding Defendant's mental state. Mr. Chigurupati testified that during the four years he w...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • State v. Bowens
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • March 27, 2018
    ...The decision to grant or deny a defendant’s motion for a continuance is within the trial court’s sound discretion. State v. Brown , 517 S.W.3d 617, 627 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017). "Nevertheless, whether a trial court committed reversible error in denying a motion for a continuance is determined b......
  • State v. Taber
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • July 8, 2020
    ...when the defense's witness, who was under subpoena, was temporarily unavailable due to a family medical emergency); State v. Brown , 517 S.W.3d 617, 630-31 (Mo. App. 2017) (holding that the trial court abused its discretion in denying a continuance because defense counsel did not have ample......
  • State v. Simms
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • July 27, 2021
    ...in his defense." In support of this claim, Simms asserts "[t]he circumstances of [his] continuance request" were similar to those in State v. Brown , where the Eastern District of this Court found the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendant's request for a trial continuan......
  • State v. McClurg
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • March 26, 2018
    ...from the denial of a motion for a continuance if granting the continuance could have affected the outcome of the case." State v. Brown , 517 S.W.3d 617, 631 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017). Defense counsel consulted with their own expert regarding the amended calculations in Dr. Norton's report, and c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT