United States v. Delorme
| Docket Number | CR 19-2322 JB |
| Decision Date | 07 November 2023 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. RYAN CHRISTIAN DELORME, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
Alexander M. M. Uballez
United States Attorney
Kimberly N. Bell
Assistant United States Attorney
United States Attorney's Office
Attorneys for the Plaintiff
Federal Public Defender
Emily P. Carey
Assistant Federal Public Defender
Federal Public Defender's Office
Attorneys for the Defendant
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER[1]THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss Indictment, filed September 29, 2022 (Doc. 46)(“MTD”). The Court held a hearing on the MTD on November 7, 2022. See Clerk's Minutes at 1, filed November 7, 2022 (Doc. 51)(“November 7 Clerk's Minutes”). The Court held a Status Conference on March 29, 2023, during which the Court heard additional arguments regarding the MTD. See Clerk's Minutes at 1, filed March 29, 2023 (Doc. 56)(“March 29 Clerk's Minutes”). The primary issues are: (i) whether 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d)'s four-month time period for hospitalization begins when a defendant enters the Attorney General's custody, or when the defendant is hospitalized, and, accordingly, whether a violation of § 4241(d) has occurred in Delorme's case; (ii) whether the transport delays Delorme has experienced rise to the level of a violation of his due process rights; and (iii) whether dismissing an indictment or expediting a defendant's transport are appropriate remedies for a transport delay that constitutes a violation of § 4241(d) or a defendant's due process rights. The Court concludes that: (i) Section 4241(d)'s plain language indicates that the four-month time period begins to run when a defendant is hospitalized and, accordingly, no violation of § 4241(d) has occurred in Delorme's case; (ii) the delays Delorme has experienced do not rise to the level of a due process violation, because the time he has spent awaiting transport, while unfortunate, is reasonably related to effectuating his hospitalization under Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972)(“Jackson”); and (iii) dismissing a case against a defendant or expediting the defendant's transport would be an inappropriate and unworkable use of the Court's supervisory power. Accordingly, the Court denies the MTD.
The Court details the procedural history of Delorme's MTD. The Court begins by summarizing the Indictment, filed July 25, 2019 (Doc. 2). The Court then provides the background relevant to Delorme's psychiatric examination. Finally the Court summarizes the MTD; the November 7, 2022, hearing; Delorme's Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Indictment (Doc. 46), filed March 21, 2023 (Doc. 54)(“Supplement”); and the March 29, 2023, status conference.
The Grand Jury indicted Delorme on July 25, 2019. See Indictment at 1. The Indictment charges Delorme with aggravated sexual abuse of a minor in Indian Country, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153, 2241(c), and 2246(2)(A). See Indictment at 1. Specifically, the Indictment alleges that “Delorme, an Indian, unlawfully and knowingly engaged in and attempted to engage in a sexual act by force” with a child who was between twelve and sixteen years of age and at least four years younger than Delorme. Indictment at 1.
On March 10, 2021, Delorme submitted the MDC. See MDC at 1-3. In the MDC, Delorme asserts that there is “reasonable cause” to conclude that he is “suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent.” MDC ¶ 1, at 1. Delorme contends that he is unable to assist properly in his own defense and harbors delusions about his charged conduct and confinement conditions. See MDC ¶ 1, at 1. Delorme requests a local psychiatric examination and hearing on the issue of competency pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241. See MDC at 2-3.
On August 23, 2021, the Court granted the MDC, noting that it was unopposed. See **Sealed** Order for Mental Competency Examination Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 4241 at 1, filed August 23, 2021 (Doc. 35)(“Examination Order”). The Court committed Delorme to the Attorney General's custody “for a reasonable period not to exceed thirty days,” in order for the Attorney General to confine Delorme in a hospital or psychiatric facility and perform a psychiatric examination. Examination Order at 1. The Court specified that the Attorney General send Delorme to the “suitable hospital or psychiatric facility closest to the court[,] unless impracticable.” Examination Order at 1.
In keeping with the Examination Order, the Attorney General committed Delorme to the Federal Detention Center in Seattle-Tacoma, Washington (“SeaTac”), on December 7, 2021. See Letter from I. Jacquez to the Court (dated January 7, 2022), filed January 17, 2022 (Doc. 37)(“Letter”). SeaTac's warden, Israel Jacquez, informed the Court that, while Delorme's psychiatric examination ordinarily would have started immediately after his arrival at SeaTac, the Letter at 1. Jacquez indicated that, at the time of Delorme's admission to SeaTac, the facility was under modified operations that impacted its ability to conduct examinations under a normal timeframe. See Letter at 1. A “significant surge in COVID-19 infections” increased the delay, given that Jacquez issued a “Shelter in Place” order that prevented psychologists from “meet[ing] with the defendant for purposes of this evaluation.” Email from Cynthia Low, Ph.D., to the Court (dated January 12, 2022), filed January 17, 2022 (Doc. 38).
Delorme underwent a competency examination on April 7, 2022, which resulted in the production of an Evaluation. See Forensic Evaluation at 3 (dated April 8, 2022), filed April 25, 2022 (Doc. 40)(“Evaluation”). The Evaluation describes Delorme as “polite and cooperative,” but indicates that he exhibits “excessively detailed, rambling, and tangential” speech which is “mostly about delusional material.” Evaluation at 11. The Evaluation determines that Delorme's “credibility was not sound,” because, during the interview process, “he made many delusional statements and continually reverted back to topics about his delusional beliefs.” Evaluation at 4. Some of these delusions revolve around Delorme's case. See Evaluation at 14. Delorme expresses a belief that he was “set up” and that several people were “in cahoots to frame [him] . . . because they could.” Evaluation at 14 (quoting Delorme). The Evaluation determines that Delorme's delusions would impact his ability to participate in his defense, and that he has “a poor ability to properly assist counsel.” Evaluation at 14. The Evaluation bases this conclusion in part on the fact that Delorme expresses a desire to disregard his attorney's advice, because his attorney will not investigate the “premediated conspiracy” to put Delorme in jail. Evaluation at 14. The Evaluation diagnoses Delorme with “Delusional Disorder, Persecutory type”[2] and recommends “[f]ormal competency restoration procedures at a federal medical center” to determine if he would be able to gain competency. Evaluation at 14-15.
On June 9, 2022, the Court held a status conference in which the parties expressed their agreement that the Court should order that Delorme be transferred to a federal medical center in order to receive additional treatment. See Clerk's Minutes at 1-2, filed June 9, 2022 (Doc. 45). Following the status conference, based on the Evaluation's recommendation and pursuant to 18 U.S.C § 4241, the Court committed Delorme to the Attorney General's custody to be transported to a Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) medical facility, “to complete further treatment to determine whether Defendant's disorder can be treated with medication,” and, if so, whether “compulsory medication is required to restore Defendant to competency.” Sealed Stipulated Order for Further Mental Competency Treatment and Restoration to Competency Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 4241 at 2, filed June 21, 2022 (Doc. 44)(“Further Treatment Order”). The Court noted that, “[i]f the Defendant is amenable to competency treatment without compulsory medication, the Defendant will reside at the facility ‘for such a reasonable period of time, not to exceed four months, as is necessary to determine whether there is a substantial probability that in the foreseeable future, he will attain the capacity to permit the proceedings to go forward.'” Further Treatment Order at 2 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d)). The Court stated that, if providers at the medical center determine that Delorme is able to be restored to full competency to the extent that he “[‘]is able to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him and to assist properly in his defense,'” then the Court will hold a hearing to ascertain if Delorme is competent enough to stand trial or to engage in other proceedings. Further Treatment Order ¶ 3, at 3 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a)). The Court noted that, if the Court were to find by a preponderance of the evidence that Delorme regained full competency, it “shall order his immediate discharge from the facility in which he is hospitalized and shall set the date for trial or other proceedings,” Further Treatment Order ¶ 3, at 3, but, if it were to determine “that there is not a substantial probability in the foreseeable future” that Delorme will gain full competency, an evaluation of whether Delorme is dangerous under 18 U.S.C. §§ 4246 or 4248, must proceed, Further Treatment Order ¶ 4, at 3. The Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial