State v. Taylor

• Docket Number: 20230534-CA
• Decision Date: 02 November 2023
• Citation: 2023 UT App 134
• Parties: State of Utah, Appellee, v. Brent E. Taylor, Appellant.
• Court: Utah Court of Appeals

1

2023 UT App 134

State of Utah, Appellee,
v.
Brent E. Taylor, Appellant.

No. 20230534-CA

Court of Appeals of Utah

November 2, 2023

Fourth District Court, American Fork Department The Honorable Roger W. Griffin No. 181101530

Margaret P. Lindsay and Douglas J. Thompson, Attorneys for Appellant

Sean D. Reyes and William M. Hains, Attorneys for Appellee

Judge John D. Luthy authored this Opinion, in which Judges Gregory K. Orme and Ryan M. Harris concurred.

OPINION

LUTHY, JUDGE

¶1 The district court revoked Brent E. Taylor's pretrial release after determining that he had been exaggerating his health problems to avoid trial. We are asked to decide whether the court abused its discretion by declining to postpone a scheduled pretrial status hearing and whether it erred by determining that there had been a material change in circumstances justifying a change in Taylor's pretrial release status. Because we determine that Taylor had a sufficient opportunity to present evidence contesting his pretrial release revocation at the scheduled hearing, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to grant a continuance. While we are not convinced that the court's finding of a material change in

2

circumstances based on Taylor's nonappearance at scheduled proceedings is supported by the record, we affirm the finding of a material change in circumstances on the alternative ground that Taylor's malingering indicated that he was an increased flight risk.

BACKGROUND

¶2 Taylor was charged with forcible sodomy, a first-degree felony, in November 2018. The district court released Taylor pending trial and allowed him to reside in Colorado, but the court imposed several pretrial release conditions. Specifically, the court required him to (1) place a sign on his home in Colorado indicating that youth were not allowed inside, (2) receive weekly random home visits by a probation provider, (3) wear a GPS ankle monitor, (4) not leave his house without being accompanied by someone over the age of eighteen, and (5) provide a letter from his religious leader notifying the court of the leader's knowledge of the charges against Taylor.

¶3 After his release, Taylor filed regular reports of the probation provider's weekly random visits through March 16, 2021, but he provided no monitoring reports after that time, even though the court never removed or modified that condition. In May 2021, Taylor asked the court for permission to remove his ankle monitor, asserting that he is diabetic and was suffering from swelling in his leg. The court ordered that the monitor be removed but instructed that it be put back on once Taylor recovered from his swelling. But there is no evidence that Taylor ever put the monitor back on.

¶4 Trial was initially scheduled for July 2021. However, in May 2021, Taylor requested that the trial dates be stricken due to his alleged poor health, and the court set new trial dates for October 2021. In September 2021, Taylor succeeded in postponing

3

trial a second time, again citing health concerns, and trial was rescheduled for April 2022.

¶5 At a status hearing in October 2021, the court asked Taylor to provide medical records within thirty days to substantiate his claim that he was physically and mentally unable to participate in trial and assist in his defense. Taylor did not provide those records. Over the next several months, however, defense counsel continued to assert that Taylor was suffering from severe health problems and that she could therefore not consult with him to prepare his defense. At a pretrial conference in March 2022, the court again postponed trial, this time until October 31-November 4, 2022, because defense counsel had a conflict with another trial. Counsel represented at that time that Taylor's health remained poor and that he could not participate in trial. Counsel had by then provided some medical records from Taylor, but the court was apparently not convinced that the health concerns identified in the records would prevent Taylor from participating in trial.

¶6 On October 17, 2022, Taylor filed a motion to continue trial again or, alternatively, to hold an evidentiary hearing regarding his health to determine whether he would be "able to be present and effectively assist counsel at trial." The court considered the motion at a hearing on October 18. Defense counsel indicated at the hearing that she had spoken to several of Taylor's physicians, who she represented had indicated that it would be difficult for Taylor to participate in a four-day trial, but counsel was not able to provide any medical documentation in support of her representations. The court stated that if counsel could obtain more definitive medical documentation, it would hold an evidentiary hearing. When counsel was unable to obtain the necessary documentation, the court ordered Taylor to undergo an independent medical examination "to determine his fitness to participate in a criminal trial, to travel, and to determine whether a secure facility could adequately address his needs were he in

4

custody." The court again postponed trial pending the outcome of the medical examination.

¶7 A jointly retained physician who was selected by the defense reviewed Taylor's medical records and performed a physical examination. Taylor arrived at the examination on a gurney, transported by "EMTs or similar personnel." After reviewing Taylor's medical records and examining Taylor, the examining physician provided the following opinions:

• "Taylor is currently capable of attending and participating in a four-day jury trial, in Utah."

• Taylor should be able to "tolerate sitting for two or three hours at a time," "listen to the proceedings attentively and participate in his defense including by consultation with his defense counsel," and "testify coherently if the need arises."

• Taylor "had been capable of attending a four-day jury trial previously and up to the present day."

• Taylor may need accommodations such as use of a reclining chair, access to his oxygen tank, and a fifteen-minute break "every hour or so."

• "[A] jail or prison would be and should be able to accommodate any health needs that [Taylor] has."

• Taylor could "travel by air or by [private] land vehicle to Utah."

¶8 After the medical exam was completed, the district court scheduled a status hearing for May 16, 2023, which was to be "conducted remotely." At the May 16 hearing, the State requested "an in-person hearing to discuss [Taylor's] custody status." The court orally granted the motion and set the requested hearing for

5

June 13, 2023. It then confirmed that setting by a written order dated May 25, 2023.

¶9 The State filed a motion on May 26, 2023, asking the court to revoke Taylor's pretrial release. The State asserted that receipt of the examining physician's report constituted a material change in circumstances sufficient to justify revocation of Taylor's pretrial release because Taylor had "inflated his medical condition over the past four and a half years to avoid trial" and because Taylor had not complied with the court's orders requiring weekly random home visits by a probation provider and the wearing of a GPS ankle monitor. Taylor filed a response on June 7, 2023, arguing that the findings in the report did not constitute a material change in circumstances and that there was no basis for altering his pretrial release status.

¶10 At the June 13, 2023 hearing, the court considered the State's motion. Taylor appeared remotely at the hearing, rather than in person as ordered, claiming he was "too ill to attend." Defense counsel argued that there had not been a change in circumstances that would warrant taking Taylor into custody and requested an evidentiary hearing to get the examining physician to testify, along with Taylor's doctors if counsel could "get any of [them] to actually respond."

¶11 The court declined defense counsel's invitation to schedule an additional evidentiary...