State v. Cothran

• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: Cristian M. Stevens, J.
• Citation: State v. Cothran, 715 S.W.3d 603 (Mo. App. 2025)
• Docket Number: ED 112122
• Decision Date: 27 May 2025
• Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Deandre J. COTHRAN, Appellant.

715 S.W.3d 603

STATE of Missouri, Respondent,

v.Deandre J. COTHRAN, Appellant.

No. ED 112122

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.

Filed: May 27, 2025

Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Cause No. 20SL-CR01744-01, Honorable Nancy W. McLaughlin, Judge

FOR APPELLANT: Kent E. Gipson, 121 East Gregory Boulevard, Kansas City, MO 64114.

FOR RESPONDENT: Andrew Bailey, Daniel N. McPherson, P.O. Box 899, 221 West High Street, Jefferson City, MO 65102.

Cristian M. Stevens, J.

Introduction

Deandre Cothran (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment upon his conviction following a jury trial for one count of unlawful use of a weapon, one count of armed criminal action, and one count of unlawful possession of a firearm. On appeal, Defendant argues the trial court erred in allowing him to proceed to trial pro se, finding Defendant competent to proceed to trial without holding a competency hearing, failing to order a mental evaluation to determine Defendant’s competence after trial, failing to grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss for violation of his speedy trial rights, and failing to sua sponte declare a mistrial after a witness commented on Defendant’s post-arrest silence. We affirm the judgement of the trial court.

Factual and Procedural History

Facts

On April 24, 2020, Ashley Friend was driving north on Interstate 270 in St. Louis County. Just before midnight, Friend saw one other car on the highway, a white Volkswagen. The Volkswagen pulled up next to Friend’s car, and she heard loud popping sounds. Friend’s passenger window shattered and she felt something hit her arm, later determined to be a bullet. Friend ducked under her steering wheel and stopped in the middle of the highway. The Volkswagen continued north on Interstate 270.

Friend pulled over to the side of the road, called 911, and gave the dispatcher a vehicle description and a partial license plate number. Officer Daniel Herich responded to the call and searched for the suspect vehicle. At a nearby parking lot, Officer Herich saw a white Volkswagen matching the description of the vehicle. Officer Herich approached the Volkswagen and talked to Defendant. Defendant produced a work badge bearing the name “Houston Mohammed.” Eventually, Officer Herich obtained Defendant’s wallet and learned his real name. At one point, Defendant spontaneously stated he had not “been in town long enough to make enemies to get into a shootout with.” Later that evening, police arrested Defendant.

Police found two spent cartridge cases in Defendant’s vehicle on the floor between the driver’s door and seat. Later investigation revealed a discarded firearm near the crime scene at an exit off Interstate 270. Forensic testing revealed the presence of Defendant’s DNA on the firearm, and test-firing of the firearm was consistent with the spent cartridge cases found in Defendant’s vehicle. Gunshot residue also was found on Defendant’s hand.

Procedural History

The State charged Defendant, via indictment, with unlawful use of a weapon, armed criminal action, and unlawful possession of a firearm.

Waiver of Counsel

Defense counsel entered her appearance in May 2020. In June 2020, counsel filed a motion to withdraw because Defendant wished to proceed pro se. Appellant appeared pro se at a pre-trial hearing on December 15, 2022. During the hearing, the trial court asked Defendant if he still wished to represent himself at trial. Defendant stated “that’s not correct” and objected to the court’s jurisdiction.¹ The trial court then informed Defendant of the charges he faced and the sentencing ranges. The trial court advised Defendant he had the right to an attorney, and if he could not employ one, the court would appoint one for him. When the trial court asked Defendant if he understood, Defendant stated he objected to “everything.” The trial court further advised Defendant of his right to tidal by jury, the assistance of counsel, the right to cross-examination, and the right to remain silent. The trial court also advised Defendant that, if he was found guilty, the court likely would impose a prison sentence. Finally, the trial court advised Defendant of his right to appeal the trial court’s judgment. When asked if he understood these rights, Defendant stated he understood his rights to “consular jurisdiction.”

The trial court presented Defendant with a waiver of counsel form and asked Defendant to read the form. Defendant stated he was “all right.” When the trial court asked if he was refusing to read the form, Defendant responded that he was done talking. The trial court took Defendant’s statement as a “refusal to read the waiver of counsel form” and asked Defendant if he refused to sign the form. Defendant asked if he could go back to his seat. The trial court informed Defendant that it would take this as his refusal to waive his right to counsel in writing. The trial court concluded, “the Court cannot do anything more than it has done to make sure that you are aware that you do have those rights.” The trial court set the next pretrial conference on January 5, 2023.

After the January 5 hearing, the trial court filed a memorandum stating that Defendant was again examined about whether he understood his right to be represented by counsel. The trial court found that Defendant comprehended that: (1) if Defendant was unable to afford an attorney, the court would appoint an attorney to represent him; (2) he had the right to trial with the assistance of an attorney who would confront and cross-examine witnesses; (3) he had the right to remain silent and not make any statement which may be used in the prosecution of the criminal charges filed against him; (4) if he entered a guilty plea or was found guilty, the judge was most likely to impose a jail or prison sentence; and (5) he had the right to appeal the court’s decision or the jury’s verdict if he exercised his right to go to trial and was found guilty.

The trial court also found that Defendant “declined to sign a waiver of counsel form” and “Defendant understands his right to counsel and is declining counsel by his actions and waiving counsel in this matter.” Finally, the trial court found that “Defendant is apparently very intelligent and capable of speaking articulately and he knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to counsel in this matter.”

Mental Competency Evaluation

On October 8, 2021, the trial court ordered a mental evaluation of Defendant. In response to this order, Defendant filed a “motion to choose doctor,” in which he stated he would participate in the mental evaluation on the conditions that he got to choose his own doctor to cross-examine the findings of the court’s doctor and the court paid all expenses for Defendant’s doctor of choice. During the evaluation, Defendant chose not to fully participate based on his sovereign citizen beliefs, though he admitted such beliefs “were just a stall tactic.”

On March 18, 2022, the Department of Mental Health issued its report finding that Defendant was competent to proceed to trial. The trial court likewise found Defendant competent to proceed to trial. Defendant did not challenge the competency evaluation.

In his motion for new trial, filed with the assistance of counsel, Defendant requested a second competency evaluation before sentencing. Defendant attached an affidavit from his mother stating he suffered traumatic brain injury from being hit in the head with a large piece of concrete when he was a child. The trial court denied the motion.

Speedy Trial Request

On January 4, 2021, Defendant filed a “demand for dismissal,” in which he asserted his right to a speedy trial. Defendant’s case had been pending during the COVID-19 pandemic. During 2020, the case generally was continued due to the pandemic. In 2021, Defendant failed to appear on one occasion, requiring the case to be continued for two months. For a period of time near the end of 2021, the trial court continued the case without a specified reason. The trial court ordered Defendant’s mental evaluation on October 8, 2021, and the Department of Mental Health submitted its report on March 18, 2022.

Following the submission of the mental evaluation, the case proceeded with a set trial date of January 9, 2023. The trial court continued the case for two weeks in January 2023 due to an unavailable State’s witness. Then, at the pre-trial conference on January 13, 2023, Defendant asked for and received a six-month continuance for the express purpose of retaining counsel. Ultimately, the case was tried to a jury on July 24, 2023.

Alleged Doyle Violations at Trial

During the direct examination of one of the investigating detectives, Detective James Crupper, the State elicited that Defendant was advised of his Miranda rights. While Detective Crupper was explaining to Defendant why he was there, what he was accused of, and the evidence against him, Defendant claimed he did not understand the charges against him. Detective Crupper testified that Defendant “never denied being involved, but he never gave an excuse or anything.”

On cross-examination of Detective Crupper, Defendant asked whether he found an in-car camera while searching Defendant’s vehicle. Detective Crupper did not recall. Defendant continued this line of questioning: “A cab camera wouldn’t be considered [of] evidentiary value to you from a vehicle involved in a shooting?” Detective Crupper replied, “Sure, if I knew that there was something on there of evidentiary value, but nobody alerted me to that.”

Defendant also testified at trial. During his direct-examination, Defendant testified he kept a camera in his car. In its cross-examination of Defendant, the State asked if Defendant had mentioned the camera to anyone, including law enforcement, before trial. Defendant responded that he had not mentioned the camera to law enforcement. In closing argument Defendant again referred to the camera in the car and questioned the integrity of...