State v. Muhammad
| Decision Date | 15 July 2022 |
| Docket Number | CR-21-0073-PR |
| Parties | STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Rahim MUHAMMAD, Appellant. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General, Linley Wilson, Deputy Solicitor General/Section Chief of Criminal Appeals, Tanja K. Kelly (argued), Assistant Attorney General, Tucson, Attorneys for State of Arizona
Steven Czop (argued), Czop Law Firm, PLLC, Higley, Attorney for Rahim Muhammad
¶1 This case asks us to determine whether, in a case where a criminal defendant's competency has been put at issue, a trial court must make a specific finding of heightened competency before determining the defendant's waiver of the right to a jury trial is knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. We conclude that Arizona law does not require such a specific finding of heightened competency with respect to a jury-trial waiver.
¶2 In 2016, Rahim Muhammad was incarcerated in the Arizona Department of Corrections ("ADOC"). From February through September 2016, Muhammad sent a series of threatening letters to J.G., an employee of ADOC, in violation of two consecutive injunctions against harassment. The State charged Muhammad with thirteen felony counts of aggravated harassment.
¶3 In August 2017, Muhammad's counsel asked the trial court to order a preliminary competency examination of Muhammad, pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.2(c) (). The trial court granted the motion and appointed Dr. Cooper-Lopez, a psychologist, to conduct the preliminary competency examination. Following the examination, Dr. Cooper-Lopez concluded that Muhammad's "ability to understand his case and discuss his rights and responsibilities within the court system was significantly impaired." Dr. Cooper-Lopez further noted Muhammad "may have exaggerated his lack of legal knowledge during the exam," and "recommended this be assessed further in subsequent evaluations."
¶4 In October 2017, the trial court ordered a full Rule 11 examination to determine if Muhammad was competent to stand trial. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 11.2(a)(1) (); see also A.R.S. § 13-4503(A) (to same effect). The trial court appointed two psychologists, Dr. Harris and Dr. Geary, to conduct the examination. See A.R.S. § 13-4505(A)(2).
¶5 Dr. Harris and Dr. Geary each examined Muhammad. In Dr. Harris’ report, she identified Muhammad's symptoms and diagnosis and explained that Muhammad displayed "an inadequate understanding of basic legal information," including "any familiarity of the charges against him in this matter, as well as the possible consequences associated with conviction." Nonetheless, she "share[d] Dr. Cooper-Lopez's concerns that he may be exaggerating his lack of understanding." Dr. Harris concluded Muhammad was "not competent to proceed to trial," but "it should be possible for [him] to be restored to competence" with "aggressive treatment" and "education to remediate deficits in his understanding of basic legal information."
¶6 Dr. Geary also concluded Muhammad was "not competent to stand trial or assist his attorney in his defense." Dr. Geary noted Muhammad was "clearly affected by significant mental illness," but there "were no observed difficulties with judgment." Moreover, while Muhammad "professed to have neither factual nor rational understanding of [the] charges against him," he "extensively feigned [his] lack of knowledge about legal/judicial matters" and there was "an element of malingering in this case." Dr. Geary determined Muhammad's "potential for restoration appear[ed] to be low because of [his] indifference and resistance."
¶7 Consequently, in January 2018, the trial court found Muhammad incompetent to stand trial and ordered him to participate in an outpatient restoration to competency program with Dr. Cooper-Lopez. Muhammad participated in the program. In April 2018, Dr. Cooper-Lopez concluded Muhammad was competent to stand trial. As Dr. Cooper-Lopez explained in a written report, while Muhammad may have "a bonafide psychiatric condition," various test results indicated he had "quite likely ... been exaggerating his memory, psychiatric, and legal knowledge deficits." Based on her nine meetings with Muhammad, she reported he "appear[ed] to possess a rational and factual understanding of his charges and legal situation, as well as the capacity to appropriately consult with counsel."
¶8 In May 2018, the trial court determined Muhammad "understands the proceedings and is able to assist counsel with [his] defense" and "is competent to stand trial." Noting that "the current medication regime is necessary to ensure [Muhammad's] ongoing competency," the trial court ordered Muhammad to "take all medications" and "follow any treatment plan as prescribed," and further ordered "the Court Clinical Liaison [to] continue to monitor" Muhammad for his "medication and treatment plan needs."
¶9 In October 2018, after Muhammad requested and was appointed new counsel, his attorney requested a second competency examination under Rule 11.2(a)(1). The State objected in part, arguing that any examination should be only a preliminary examination under Rule 11.2(c). The trial court conducted a hearing and concluded a preliminary examination was "necessary to determine whether a further Rule 11 evaluation [was] necessary." The trial court appointed Dr. Vega, a psychologist, to conduct a preliminary examination of Muhammad under Rule 11.2(c).
¶10 In December 2018, Dr. Vega concluded that, although Muhammad was suffering from certain symptoms, he was competent to stand trial and required no further examination. Dr. Vega explained that Muhammad (1) "has a full understanding of the reason for his arrest and the seriousness of his offense," (2) "has a factual and rational understanding of the nature of the proceedings against him," and (3) "will be able to assist counsel in the preparation of his own defense." In addition, Muhammad "understands [the] legal process and court procedures," including "the concept of a plea agreement versus taking a case to trial and the roles of the pertinent parties in court."
¶11 In January 2019, the trial court reviewed Dr. Vega's report and determined Muhammad was competent to stand trial. The trial court also concluded no additional examinations under Rule 11 were necessary. Consequently, the parties moved forward with pretrial proceedings.
¶12 In April 2019, before trial commenced, Muhammad personally signed a "Waiver of Trial by Jury" form. The form's stated purpose was "to advise you of your right to trial by jury and to allow you to give up that right if you so choose." The form explained the rights that were being waived:
I understand that I am entitled to a trial by jury on these charges and, if applicable, on facts used to aggravate any sentence. The right to a trial by jury means the right to have my guilt or innocence, or, if applicable, facts used to aggravate any sentence, decided by a group of citizens whose decision must be unanimous.
Muhammad's counsel also signed the form, acknowledging he had "explained to [Muhammad] the right to trial by jury" and "consent[ed] to [Muhammad's] waiver of it," and filed the waiver with the trial court.
¶13 On June 25, 2019, the first day of trial, Muhammad repeated his request for a bench trial on the record. Muhammad's counsel explained "the reasoning behind this is with a name like Rahim Muhammad, my client believed he could not get a fair trial in front of a largely white jury." The trial court then engaged in a personal colloquy with Muhammad:
¶14 The trial court explained to Muhammad that waiving his right to a jury trial meant "giving up some important rights." Specifically, in a jury trial (1) "all the jurors would need to agree unanimously as to [his] guilt," and (2) jurors would "decide any aggravating factors that could increase the possible length of [his] prison term." The trial court informed Muhammad that, if he proceeds with a bench trial, the judge will decide "whether or not the state has proven the charges beyond a reasonable doubt" and "whether any aggravating factors exist in [his] case." The trial court also reviewed with Muhammad the charges against him, as well as the sentencing possibilities and consequences. In addition, the trial court confirmed he was not forced or threatened into waiving his right to a jury trial, nor was he promised anything in exchange for waiving this right.
¶15 After this personal colloquy, Muhammad confirmed that he preferred to proceed before a judge, rather than a jury, and he understood the consequences of doing so. The trial court concluded Muhammad had "knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial" and signed the "Waiver of Trial by Jury" form.
¶16 Thereafter, during a brief discussion about pretrial rulings and the option for Muhammad to plead and have the trial court review his mental health records, Muhammad's counsel noted he In...
To continue reading
Request your trial