State v. Carneh

• Decision Date: 30 March 2009
• Docket Number: No. 61445-2-I.,61445-2-I.
• Citation: 203 P.3d 1073,149 Wn. App. 402
• Parties: STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Leemah CARNEH, Appellant.
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals

203 P.3d 1073

149 Wn. App. 402

STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Leemah CARNEH, Appellant.

No. 61445-2-I.

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1.

March 30, 2009.

Louis Frantz, Carl Luer, Kent, WA, for Appellant.

Roger Davidheiser, James Konat, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.

AGID, J.

¶ 1 The State charged Leemah Carneh with four counts of aggravated murder in March 2001. After extensive and periodically successful competency restoration treatment, the trial court ultimately dismissed the case without prejudice because it found Carneh was incompetent to stand trial at that time. The State refiled charges after learning that Carneh had shown signs of improvement while he was civilly committed. Carneh appeals from the trial court's order requiring him to undergo additional competency restoration. We hold that the trial court reacquired criminal jurisdiction after the prosecutor properly relied on Carneh's improved condition as a good faith basis for refiling charges. Because Carneh was incompetent and reasonably likely to regain competency, the trial court was required to order further competency restoration for Carneh.

FACTS

¶ 2 On March 8, 2001, someone murdered Richard and Leola Larson, their grandson, Taelor Marks, and his girlfriend, Josie Peterson, in the Larsons' home. In March 2001, the police arrested Leemah Carneh, and the State charged him with four counts of aggravated first degree murder. Carneh was found incompetent in September 2001 based on reports from Dr. Dale Watson, a defense expert, and Dr. Janet Schaeffer of Western State Hospital (WSH). The trial court ordered Carneh to undergo a 90 day competency restoration at WSH, where he was treated with Risperidone, an antipsychotic medication.¹ After the 90 day commitment, Dr. Schaeffer reported that Carneh had gained the capacity to rationally assist in his defense. Dr. James Wood, a defense expert, agreed that Carneh was competent despite suffering from a severe mental disorder. The trial court found Carneh competent in February 2002, but he decompensated while in jail and was recommitted to WSH for a 90 day restoration. Following this restoration, the trial court found Carneh competent to stand trial again in September 2002.

¶ 3 The case proceeded to trial, and Carneh pled not guilty by reason of insanity. Carneh decompensated again while the trial was delayed for an interlocutory appeal.² The trial court found Carneh incompetent and ordered him to WSH for a 90 day competency restoration in June 2004 and for an additional 90 day period in September 2004. Carneh was reevaluated and recommitted for a final 180 day competency restoration in December 2004. In September 2005, the trial court heard testimony from four experts on Carneh's competency. All experts agreed that Carneh is a paranoid schizophrenic who suffers from delusions but that he had the capacity to understand the nature of the charges against him. The experts disagreed about whether Carneh could rationally assist in his own defense. The trial court found that Carneh's delusions prevented him from assisting in his defense and dismissed the case without prejudice under former RCW 10.77.090(4) (2002). The trial court also found there was reason to believe that Carneh's competency would be restored because it had been restored twice, his medication appeared to be having the desired effects on his symptoms, and the full benefits of the medication would not occur until 2006. After the criminal charges were dismissed, Carneh was civilly committed to WSH.

¶ 4 On October 10, 2007, Dr. Murray Hart of WSH sent notice to the prosecutor that

Mr. Carneh will be moved to a ward within WSH where he can earn [g]rounds privileges without constant accompaniment of WSH staff on either the unsecured grounds of WSH or within the community. ...

As the criminal charges against Mr. Carneh were dismissed without prejudice, your office could re-file these charges at any time.... At this time we can offer no opinion on competency until ordered by the court to perform such an evaluation under RCW 10.77.[³]

¶ 5 On November 13, 2007, the State refiled charges against Carneh, and the trial court ordered WSH to evaluate Carneh's competency. The January 14, 2008 evaluation report stated that Carneh was not competent to stand trial because he was not able to understand the case against him and could not assist in his defense. The competency report also stated that treatment options had not been exhausted and recommended further attempts at competency restoration.

¶ 6 Carneh moved to dismiss the charges, and the State asked the court to order competency restoration. Both parties agreed that Carneh was not competent and that there is a reasonable probability that his competence could be restored with appropriate treatment, although Carneh objected to the 90 day competency restoration commitment. On February 25, 2008, the trial court found that Carneh was incompetent, but the prosecutor had a good faith basis for refiling charges against him. The trial court ordered a 90 day competency restoration and certified for review the question of its authority to order further restoration. Carneh sought discretionary review, which we granted. Because Carneh did not seek a stay pending appeal, proceedings continued in superior court. On May 23, 2008, the trial court found that Carneh remained incompetent after the 90 day commitment and ordered him recommitted for an additional 90 days.

DISCUSSION

¶ 7 Former RCW 10.77.090 (2002), now codified as RCW 10.77.086(4),⁴ authorized the trial court's initial orders committing Carneh to WSH for 90 day competency restoration treatments.⁵ Former RCW 10.77.090(1)(d)(i)(C)(ii) (2002), now codified as RCW 10.77.086(3), authorized the additional 90 day commitment.⁶ And former RCW 10.77.090(4) (2002), now codified as RCW 10.77.086(4), provided for Carneh's final 180 day competency restoration treatment.⁷

¶ 8 Carneh argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to recommit him because the prosecutor did not have the authority to refile charges while he remained incompetent. The State counters that a person's incompetence does not deprive the State of its authority to file charges, which is the event that vests the superior court with jurisdiction. The trial court's jurisdiction is a question of law subject to de novo review.⁸ While prosecutors may not try an incompetent defendant,⁹ competence is not a prerequisite for charging an individual with a crime.¹⁰ For example, in State v. Lewis,¹¹ State v. Adams,¹² and State v. Lover,¹³ the State filed charges before the court made a competency determination. And for good reason: the superior court does not acquire subject matter jurisdiction over a criminal matter until the State files an information charging a felony offense.¹⁴ Thus, absent the filing of charges, a court does not otherwise have the authority to order an individual to undergo a 15 day competency evaluation under RCW 10.77.060.¹⁵ This jurisdictional limitation is reflected in the wording of RCW 10.77.060, which applies only to "defendants" and not to all individuals.¹⁶

¶ 9 Carneh does not dispute that prosecutors may file charges before making a competency determination, but argues that known incompetency bars refiling. His position is that the State could not refile charges against an incompetent person until there has been a demonstrated change in that person's capacity to stand trial. The statutory scheme does not support Carneh's position. After the trial court dismissed charges without prejudice, it lost the authority to order competency evaluation under RCW 10.77.060 unless the State refiles charges. As the State notes, Carneh's rationale would result in a rule barring future prosecution because the statutory scheme prohibits the court from revisiting its prior determination of incompetency. By requiring that "the charges shall be dismissed without prejudice" after "the jury or court finds that the defendant is incompetent,"¹⁷ the legislature reserved the prosecutor's ability to refile charges. The legislature also made clear that the bar against trying incompetent defendants lasts only "so long as such incapacity continues."¹⁸

¶ 10 This does not mean that the legislature granted unfettered discretion to prosecutors to file charges at any time. Instead, they must act in good faith.¹⁹ Additionally, a prosecutor's "`decision to file criminal charges, with the awesome consequences it entails, requires consideration of a wide range of factors in addition to the strength of the Government's case, in order to determine whether prosecution would be in the public interest.'"²⁰ Thus, prosecutors who refile charges against incompetent individuals must have a good faith basis to believe that the procedures outlined in chapter 10.77 RCW will likely lead to the restoration of a defendant's competency to stand trial.²¹

¶ 11 Here, the trial court found that the letter about Carneh's improved condition provided the prosecutor with a good faith basis to refile charges. We review the application of the law to facts de novo.²² The prosecutor had two reasons to believe that Carneh's competency could be restored. First, before dismissing the case without prejudice, the trial court found "reason to believe that [Carneh's] competency will again be restored."²³ Second, the letter from WSH stated that Carneh would be moved to a ward where he would be able to earn the privilege to move about without accompaniment on the unsecured grounds of WSH or within the community. This clearly implies that his condition is greatly improved and supported the trial court's prediction. The court's finding and the information from WSH provided the prosecutor with a good faith basis to believe that Carneh's competency was improving and would likely be restored. Because the prosecutor properly refiled charges against Carneh, the superior court reacquired criminal jurisdiction over this case.

¶ 12...