State v. Wright
| Decision Date | 27 February 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 2049-III,2049-III |
| Parties | STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Richard WRIGHT, Jr., Appellant. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
Allen Ressler and Richard Emery, Institutional Legal Services Project, Seattle, and Neil Sarles, Institutional Legal Services Project, Medical Lake, for appellant.
Donald C. Brockett, Pros. Atty., Fred Caruso, Deputy Pros. Atty., Spokane, for respondent.
More than seven years ago appellant Richard Wright was arrested for second-degree assault and robbery. He entered a guilty plea on December 9, 1970, and on April 28, 1971, he was sentenced to five years of probation conditioned upon continuing psychiatric treatment at Eastern State Hospital. His probation was revoked in July 1973, and he was sentenced to a maximum 10 years of confinement. Apparently he is currently on parole.
Since his arrest, Mr. Wright's case has repeatedly been before the courts. In June of 1974 he sought from this court post-conviction relief on the grounds the trial judge failed to determine or order a hearing as to whether he was competent to plead guilty, failed to determine whether he was competent to stand trial and convicted him while he was legally insane. His application for such relief was denied.
After review in Wright v. Morris, 85 Wash.2d 899, 540 P.2d 893 (1975), the Supreme Court remanded Mr. Wright's petition to this court. We, in turn, remanded the case to Spokane County Superior Court for "disposition it deems appropriate pursuant to CrR 7.7." 1 Pursuant to the remand, a fact-finding hearing was conducted on May 5, 1976, after which the court denied Mr. Wright's petition.
At the 1976 hearing the court heard testimony from a state hospital psychiatrist who dealt with Mr. Wright at the time of his initial court appearances, Superior Court Judge William H. Williams who accepted his guilty plea and sentenced him, and Mr. Sid Wurzburg, counsel for Mr. Wright at arraignment and sentencing. The court concluded 2 that the facts known to Judge Williams at both the time of the plea and sentencing were not such as to raise a reasonable doubt as to Mr. Wright's competency and "that Judge Williams acted entirely properly in proceeding as he did." Mr. Wright's request that the sentence be vacated was therefore denied. He appeals.
The court considered the sole question presented at the hearing to be whether under the facts known to Judge Williams at the time of the sentencing he should have ordered a sanity commission to determine whether Mr. Wright was competent to have entered his plea of guilty on December 9, 1970. 3 As found by the court, those facts are that after Mr. Wright had entered his plea, and following a few remarks by the deputy prosecutor, Mr. Wright cried long enough for the court to call a brief recess. When court resumed, a pre-sentence investigation was ordered, and Mr. Wright was sent to jail pending completion of the investigation.
On the same day Mr. Wright wrote to Judge Williams indicating sorrow for the way he had acted in court and for what he had done to the victim of the assault. He also asked that Judge Williams allow him to be released during the Christmas holidays so that he could see his daughter. A series of letters from Mr. Wright to Judge Williams followed, one of them referring to Mr. Wright's desire to sing and play the piano in jail and indicating that an unknown someone who lived at an unknown address in Spokane had told Mr. Wright she would teach him to play the piano.
In December 1970, Judge Williams allowed Mr. Wright a holiday release from jail, but he was immediately involved in a hit-and-run accident, while driving under the influence of liquor, and was arrested and returned to jail within a day. When arrested, he had a blank starter pistol in his possession. Then, on January 22, 1971, apparently prompted by the letter concerning piano lessons and at the request of Mr. Wurzburg, Judge Williams committed Mr. Wright to Eastern State Hospital for a period not to exceed 30 days for the purpose of observation to determine his mental capacity.
By letter of February 19, 1971, Dr. Jack Ashurst, an Eastern State psychiatrist, reported to Judge Williams that Mr. Wright's condition was "one of borderline mental retardation," and he recommended Mr. Wright be returned to the court for disposition. Attached to the letter was a clinical summary which indicated Mr. Wright was "not psychotic" and that there was no evidence he suffered from character disorder. The report said, "The difficulty seems to be in his intelligence level." 4
The summary also stated, It concluded:
It is quite difficult to determine whether or not he really understands the meaning of right or wrong and whether or not he really appreciates the seriousness of his offense. Due to this man's rather wholesome attitude about his past and toward people here in the hospital, I feel that he might benefit from a period of training in a rather rigidly structured environment.
Mr. Wright was then returned to Spokane County Jail. However, two weeks later he was civilly committed to the state hospital as a mentally ill person and began receiving treatment. On April 28, 1971, Mr. Wright was returned to court for sentencing at which time the deputy prosecutor informed the court generally of the civil commitment and that it was a result of Mr. Wright's difficulties in the jail. At that time the court was informed that Mr. Wright was currently under psychiatric care at the hospital and would continue under such care until his difficulties were resolved.
Before imposing sentence, Judge Williams asked Mr. Wright if he had anything to say in his own behalf, to which he replied, "Yes, Thou shall not kill." Upon the recommendation of both the deputy prosecutor and defense counsel, Mr. Wright was sentenced to probation for a period of five years conditioned upon continuing treatment at the hospital "until determined to be recovered from his mental illness."
Not known to Judge Williams at that time was that while he was in jail awaiting sentencing, Mr. Wright's mental condition deteriorated rapidly. He experienced a severe psychotic episode during which he was hyperactive, yelling, screaming, combative and possibly hallucinating. He smeared feces over the walls and himself, and he was involuntarily civilly committed to the state hospital. Hospital records indicate a diagnosis of schizophrenia about 13 days prior to the sentencing. In addition, Dr. Ashurst testified during the fact-finding hearing on remand that Mr. Wright was not competent to stand trial at the time of either of his commitments or at the time of sentencing based on criteria that he know and appreciate his peril and the consequences of his being found guilty as well as having the ability to participate in his own defense. 5
Mr. Wright raises three arguments on appeal: (1) The trial court erred in finding that, based on the facts before him, Judge Williams did not err in failing to order a hearing into Mr. Wright's competency to stand trial or be sentenced; (2) the trial court erred in failing to find the evidence not before Judge Williams was sufficient to require a hearing as to Mr. Wright's competency at arraignment and sentencing; and (3) the trial court erred in failing to determine Mr. Wright's competency at those times.
Fortunately, in some respects the law regarding the rights of an incompetent defendant is settled. There is no doubt that a defendant's right to due process is violated if he is convicted 6 or sentenced 7 while he is incompetent. Where there is a substantial question of possible doubt as to the defendant's competency to stand trial, due process requires that the trial court conduct a competency hearing. 8 That decision is a matter within the discretion of the trial court, and it will not be overturned absent an abuse of that discretion. 9
To consider only the facts before Judge Williams at the time of arraignment and sentencing as bearing on the question of whether a hearing should have been held on Mr. Wright's competency answers only one-half of the question. Mr. Wright may well have been incompetent in spite of the lack of evidence before the trial court. If due process prevents the conviction of an incompetent, an inquiry limited only to the facts appearing before the trial judge does not serve due process. For whatever reasons, the judge may not be aware of an accused's mental state. Denying the accused his fundamental rights solely because the trial court did not have facts before it sufficient to create a doubt about competency is nonetheless a denial of due process which may be remedied upon a petition for post-conviction relief.
This result is in accord with the scope of relief available in post-conviction proceedings either under the former CrR 7.7 10 or the new rule, RAP 16.4. 11 Other considerations 12 also favor such a decision. Furthermore, it is supported by case law. As the Supreme Court of Indiana said in Evans v. State, 261 Ind. 148, 300 N.E.2d 882, 888 (1973):
When we have a situation such as this where the trial process has been completed without any apparent indications of incompetency on the part of appellant the verdict of a court should not be lightly disturbed. The relevant issue is, after all, appellant's ability to understand the proceedings and consult with his attorney and if any doubt concerning his ability to do so are to become apparent they would normally do so when he is in the process of performing these functions. However as we have held in a recent opinion:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v.
...courts have also explained that remand was the proper remedy when a trial court should have had a competency hearing but did not.71 In State v. Wright, the court recognized that “a belated determination of the defendant's sanity at the time he pleaded [could] be fruitless.” 72 But the court......
-
State v. Hicks
...that the trial court conduct a competency hearing. State v. Johnston, supra 84 Wash.2d at 576, 527 P.2d 1310; State v. Wright, 19 Wash.App. 381, 387, 575 P.2d 740 (1978). The decision to hold a competency hearing is within the trial court's discretion and will not be overturned absent an ab......
-
People v. Matthews, 81CA0262
...defenses available to an accused. Drope v. Missouri, supra; Pate v. Robinson, supra; People v. Stankewitz, supra; cf. State v. Wright, 19 Wash.App. 381, 575 P.2d 740 (1978); State v. Fox, 112 Ariz. 375, 542 P.2d 800 The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings ......
-
State v. Wolf
... ... Additionally, ... if evidence following conviction indicates that a ... defendant was incompetent at trial, there could be a ... violation of due process; in such a case, we would remand for ... a fact finding hearing. State v. Wright, 19 Wn.App ... 381, 387, 575 P.2d 740 (1978). Before we would order that ... relief, however, a defendant must present evidence that he ... was incompetent at the time of trial. There is no such ... evidence in our record. See id., at n.7. If Mr. Wolf ... has evidence ... ...