People of Michigan v. Kenneth Baldridge Jr ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                           STATE OF MICHIGAN
    COURT OF APPEALS
    PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,                                    UNPUBLISHED
    November 8, 2016
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v                                                                   No. 328252
    Wayne Circuit Court
    KENNETH BALDRIDGE, JR.,                                             LC No. 14-004069-FH
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: WILDER, P.J., and CAVANAGH and SERVITTO, JJ.
    PER CURIAM.
    Defendant appeals by leave granted1 his plea-based convictions of carrying a concealed
    weapon (CCW), MCL 750.227, felon in possession of a firearm, MCL 750.224f, and possession
    of a firearm during the commission of a felony (felony-firearm), MCL 750.227b. We affirm.
    Defendant challenges his convictions, arguing that the trial court erred when it denied his
    request for a competency examination after he had already pleaded guilty as charged. In
    particular, after the plea hearing but before sentencing, defendant retained a new attorney who
    filed a motion to withdraw the plea and a motion requesting a mental competency examination,
    alleging that defendant had a history of mental illness and a psychiatrist determined he was
    incapable of understanding the proceedings against him. The trial court denied defendant’s
    motions.
    On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his
    post-plea motion requesting a mental competency examination. We disagree.
    “[A] trial court has the duty of raising the issue of incompetence where facts are brought
    to its attention which raise a ‘bona fide doubt’ as to the defendant’s competence.” People v
    Kammeraad, 
    307 Mich. App. 98
    , 138; 858 NW2d 490 (2014), quoting People v Harris, 185 Mich
    App 100, 102; 460 NW2d 239 (1990). This Court reviews a trial court’s determination of the
    existence of a bona fide doubt for an abuse of discretion. 
    Id. “An abuse
    of discretion occurs
    1
    People v Baldridge, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered August 13, 2015
    (Docket No. 328252).
    -1-
    only when the trial court’s decision is outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes.”
    
    Kammeraad, 307 Mich. App. at 140
    (citation omitted).
    “A defendant who is determined incompetent to stand trial shall not be proceeded against
    while he is incompetent.” MCL 330.2022(1). The statute governing incompetency requires the
    following:
    A defendant to a criminal charge shall be presumed competent to stand trial. He
    shall be determined incompetent to stand trial only if he is incapable because of
    his mental condition of understanding the nature and object of the proceedings
    against him or of assisting in his defense in a rational manner. The court shall
    determine the capacity of a defendant to assist in his defense by his ability to
    perform the tasks reasonably necessary for him to perform in the preparation of
    his defense and during his trial. [MCL 330.2020(1).]
    The defense, court, or prosecution may raise the issue of competency, MCL 330.2024, and the
    issue of competence can only be raised by actual evidence of incompetence, People v Blocker,
    
    393 Mich. 501
    , 508; 227 NW2d 767 (1975). Further, MCL 330.2026(1) states:
    Upon a showing that the defendant may be incompetent to stand trial, the court
    shall order the defendant to undergo an examination by personnel of either the
    center for forensic psychiatry or other facility officially certified by the
    department of mental health to perform examinations relating to the issue of
    incompetence to stand trial.
    This Court in 
    Kammeraad, 307 Mich. App. at 138
    , stated the trial court’s duty when there
    are facts presented that cause the trial judge to question a defendant’s competency: “Although
    the determination of a defendant’s competence is within the trial court’s discretion, a trial court
    has the duty of raising the issue of incompetence where facts are brought to its attention which
    raise a ‘bona fide doubt’ as to the defendant’s competence.” 
    Id., quoting Harris,
    185 Mich App
    at 102. When the trial court is deciding whether further inquiry in regard to competency is
    required, “[e]vidence of a defendant’s irrational behavior, a defendant’s demeanor, and a
    defendant’s prior medical record relative to competence are all relevant” to the judge’s
    determination. 
    Kammeraad, 307 Mich. App. at 139
    . This Court has explained that “[t]here are, of
    course, no fixed or immutable signs which invariably indicate the need for further inquiry to
    determine fitness to proceed; the question is often a difficult one in which a wide range of
    manifestations and subtle nuances are implicated.” 
    Id. (quotation marks
    and citation omitted.)
    On appeal, this Court must ask “whether a reasonable judge, situated as was the trial court judge
    whose failure to conduct an evidentiary hearing is being reviewed, should have experienced
    doubt with respect to competency to stand trial.” 
    Id. at 138-139
    (quotation marks and citation
    omitted).
    Defendant argues that there was a bona fide doubt as to his competency at the time of his
    guilty plea because he has a history of mental illness and a psychiatrist determined he was
    incapable of understanding the proceedings against him. Defendant’s arguments fail because his
    demeanor and behavior throughout the proceedings, and his unsubstantiated medical diagnoses,
    did not raise a bona fide doubt as to defendant’s competency.
    -2-
    First, there was no evidence that defendant’s behavior or demeanor at the plea hearing
    should have raised a bona fide doubt as to his competence. Defendant does not dispute the
    prosecutor’s assertion that he was articulate and appeared to understand the nature and object of
    the proceedings against him. At the plea hearing, defendant described in detail the type of gun
    he was carrying and the fact that he did so as a felon, supporting the inference that defendant
    understood the charges being brought against him. Defendant also answered each of the trial
    court’s questions at the plea hearing without hesitation or confusion. Even more, when
    defendant had trouble proceeding at the plea hearing due to an apparent physical ailment, the
    trial court afforded defendant the opportunity to make his plea at a later time, but defendant
    assured the court he was ready and wanted to proceed.
    Moreover, defendant demonstrated his understanding of the proceedings when he
    addressed the court at length during the sentencing hearing about a dispute he had with his
    original trial counsel. Defendant explained in great detail to the trial court his discomfort about
    making a guilty plea. Importantly, defendant explained that he did not want to plead guilty and
    instead wanted a jury trial, and it was defendant’s first attorney who allegedly pushed defendant
    into a guilty plea. Not only does defendant’s explanation show he understood the proceedings
    against him, it shows he could “perform the tasks reasonably necessary for him to perform in the
    preparation of his defense . . . .” MCL 330.2020(1). Defendant’s explanation as to why he took
    the plea shows defendant assisted in his defense by discussing with his attorney the various
    reasons for pleading guilty. Defendant’s behavior and demeanor during the hearings did not
    raise any doubt as to his competency, and the trial judge’s refusal to order a competency hearing
    did not constitute an abuse of discretion.
    Second, defendant’s claim that his medical history raises a bona fide doubt as to his
    competency is meritless. The issue of competency must be raised through evidence of
    incompetence, 
    Blocker, 393 Mich. at 508
    , and defendant failed to provide any medical
    documentation that would substantiate his history of mental illness. This case is distinguishable
    from Harris, where this Court remanded the case for a competency examination because there
    existed a bona fide doubt as to the defendant’s competence. 
    Harris, 185 Mich. App. at 103
    . In
    that case, the defendant’s diagnosis and treatment of schizophrenia was documented and
    “undisputed.” 
    Id. at 102-103.
    Additionally, the defendant exhibited “bizarre” behavior during
    her trial, and she had been previously determined incompetent. 
    Id. at 103.
    The combination of a
    diagnosed mental illness and the defendant’s behavior at trial raised a bona fide doubt as to the
    defendant’s competence. 
    Id. In this
    case, defendant did not provide the lower court with any
    documentation that a “Dr. Dixon” actually treated defendant or was of the opinion that defendant
    was incompetent at the time of the guilty plea. Defendant’s own appellate brief acknowledges
    that “[i]f the assertions of [defendant] and the retained attorney who appeared after the plea, but
    before sentencing, are to be believed, then [defendant] has had a long history of mental illness,
    including Bi-polar [sic] Disorder, Schizophrenia, and panic attacks.” (Emphasis added.)
    Defendant never presented medical documentation substantiating his mental illness or acted in a
    manner that would allow the trial judge to conclude that defendant may be incompetent.
    The only possible corroborating evidence of a mental illness was the fact that the preparer
    of defendant’s Presentence Investigation Report (PSIR) verified the use of prescription
    medication. The PSIR did not, however, explain why the medication was prescribed or what it
    treated. Regardless, defendant’s use of psychotropic drugs or other medication alone does not
    -3-
    necessitate a competency examination. Pursuant to MCL 330.2020(2), “A defendant shall not be
    determined incompetent to stand trial because psychotropic drugs or other medication have been
    or are being administered under proper medical direction . . . .” While the trial judge may
    require a prescribing doctor to verify a defendant’s competency, such a decision is left entirely in
    the discretion of the trial judge. 
    Id. Nothing in
    the record proved defendant had a history of
    mental illness apart from his own unsupported claims, and the fact that defendant was taking two
    prescription medications does not alone support a bona fide doubt as to defendant’s competence.
    Even if defendant’s claimed diagnoses were substantiated, his argument would still fail
    because he showed no signs of incompetence at the plea hearing. This case is similar to People v
    Johnson, 
    58 Mich. App. 473
    , 478; 228 NW2d 429 (1975),2 where this Court rejected the
    defendant’s contention that the trial court should have sua sponte ordered a competency hearing.
    In Johnson, the defendant’s psychological report actually “suggested the emergence of a
    schizophrenic process,” but the report also “showed [the] defendant to be appropriately oriented
    to time, place, person, and immediate situation.” 
    Id. Here, as
    in Johnson, defendant was also
    oriented to time, place, person, and immediate situation during both the plea hearing and
    sentencing hearings, indicating defendant understood the nature and object of the proceedings
    against him despite any claimed medical diagnosis. Therefore, defendant’s medical history,
    alone, does not create a bona fide doubt as to defendant’s competency, and the trial court’s
    refusal to order a competency exam did not “fall outside the range of reasonable and principled
    outcomes.” 
    Kammeraad, 307 Mich. App. at 140
    .
    Affirmed.
    /s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
    /s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
    /s/ Deborah A. Servitto
    2
    Under MCR 7.215(J)(1), Johnson, decided in 1975, is not precedentially binding. However, it
    has not been reversed or modified by the Supreme Court and is persuasive as factually similar to
    the instant case.
    -4-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 328252

Filed Date: 11/8/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/10/2016