State Of Washington v. James O. Lester ( 2014 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
No. 70124-0-1
Respondent,
v. DIVISION ONE
JAMES OTIS LESTER, UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant. FILED: April 21, 2014
Leach, J. — James Lester appeals his conviction for assault in the first
degree, claiming that he was incompetent to stand trial. Because Lester fails to
show that the trial court abused its discretion when it found him competent to
stand trial, we affirm.
Background
On February 9, 2011, the State charged Lester with assault in the first
degree. Before trial, defense counsel informed the court that he had reason to
believe Lester was not competent to stand trial "due to his declining cognitive
status." On January 24, 2012, the court ordered a pretrial competency
evaluation by Western State Hospital.
Dr. John Neer, a defense-retained neuropsychologist, and Dr. Joanna
Johnson, a Western State Hospital forensic psychologist, examined Lester. For
his evaluation, Dr. Neer interviewed Lester, administered a number of cognitive
No. 70124-0-1/2
tests, and reviewed medical records from Harborview Medical Center and Dr.
Johnson's report. Dr. Neer diagnosed Lester with cognitive disorder not
otherwise specified or dementia not otherwise specified. He testified that Lester
had difficulty remaining focused during their conversation and that Lester has an
IQ of 68, which indicates mild mental retardation to borderline range of
functioning. But Dr. Neer also testified that Lester understood generally the
charge of murder and "the role of the different courtroom participants," that Lester
expressed faith and trust in his attorney, that Lester was able to talk about the
"the entire court process," and that he was able to "discuss a situation where the
police came, and he was confronted by the police, and he was arrested." In his
report, Dr. Neer stated,
It is believed that he would be unable to track information presented
by his attorney, process it in a meaningful manner, and have a
constructive exchange in conversation about his legal [sic]. It is
also believed that Mr. Lester would be unable to recall any
information that he had previously discussed with his attorney. His
decision-making process would likely be irrational, impulsive and
perhaps be based on information that is unassociated or loosely
related to his case. The deficits that are interfering with his ability
to assist counsel are believed to be secondary to dementia.
Based on neuropsychological assessment results, clinical
interviews, and collateral records, it is my opinion that Mr. Lester
does not have the capacity to assist his attorney in his own defense
due to his severe cognitive impairments.
Dr. Neer believed it was "fairly unlikely that he would improve to the level of
having a capacity to assist counsel."
For her evaluation, Dr. Johnson interviewed Lester and his attorney and
reviewed King County Correctional Facility records, Harborview Medical Center
No. 70124-0-1/3
records, information from defense counsel, information from the King County
Crisis and Commitment Services, discovery documents that the State provided,
the Mental Health Division Intranet Database, and a Washington Access to
Criminal History Report from the Washington State Patrol. Lester had no history
of psychiatric hospitalization or outpatient mental health treatment but had past
diagnoses of depression, seizure disorder, and alcohol abuse and dependence.
Dr. Johnson concluded in her report:
Mr. Lester presented with no signs or symptoms of psychosis and
although he exhibited mild memory impairment!,] in my opinion, his
competence is sufficient to proceed. Mr. Lester appreciates the
allegations against him, the seriousness of them, and possible
penalties. He further demonstrated sufficient understanding of
court procedures, legal strategies and the roles of courtroom
participants. Regarding any court related information that he
misunderstands or lacks knowledge of, Mr. Lester demonstrated
the capacity to learn new information and subsequently to
reasonably apply it to his legal case.
Mr. Lester reported that he has paperwork which identifies the
charges and other information related to his case. Memory aids
such as this is highly recommended; however there is a lack of data
to suggest that his memory is so impaired that he cannot assist
defense counsel. The jail records do not indicate any significant
memory or cognitive impairment. Indeed, Mr. Lester was able to
recall and relate information that he had discussed with his attorney
to jail staff, specifically his plea options.
Mr. Lester is capable of reasonably assessing his legal options and
his decision-making abilities are intact. His behavior was well-
controlled during the interview, suggesting the ability to work with
defense counsel and his ability to manifest appropriate courtroom
behavior. Mr. Lester expressed some concerns about his attorney;
however they were not delusional or irrational. He understands that
defense counsel is supposed to help him and he reported that he
does trust his attorney's judgment. Mr. Lester is further capable of
participating in planning a defense strategy and to make reasoned
choices during courtroom proceedings. Therefore, it is my opinion
No. 70124-0-1/4
that Mr. Lester has the capacity to understand the nature of the
proceedings against him and the capacity to assist in his defense.
Dr. Johnson testified that low scores on Dr. Neer's neuropsychological
tests "doesn't necessarily mean that it's interfering with his functional capabilities
to—to be able to assist his attorney or to understand the court process." She
opined that Lester "demonstrates the requisite abilities to be able to understand
the court process, to reasonably and rationally think about that and to assist his
attorney."
The court also considered testimony from Nykia Johnson, a release
planner at the King County Correctional Facility. Johnson met with Lester in
March 2012 to discuss release planning services. She testified that she
contacted Lester's public defender social worker after this meeting to express her
concerns that Lester seemed disoriented and reported difficulty performing his
adult daily living skills.
Additionally, the court considered testimony from King County Correctional
Officers Kenneth Morano and Vincent Johnston. Officer Morano testified that
when he had contact with Lester in jail, Lester never appeared disoriented and
had no difficulty following directions or communicating. Officer Johnston testified
that Lester demonstrated no confusion, disorientation, or memory problems, and
was able to follow instructions.
No. 70124-0-1/5
Following a hearing, the court found Lester competent to stand trial. A
jury found Lester guilty of assault in the first degree.1
Lester appeals.
Analysis
Lester claims that he "was unable to assist his attorney in his defense
because of his mental deficiencies." Both the due process clause of the United
States Constitution and RCW 10.77.050 prohibit trying an incompetent criminal
defendant.2 "In Washington, a defendant is competent to stand trial if he
understands the nature of the charges and is capable of assisting in his own
defense."3
Washington courts generally presume that a defendant is competent to
stand trial and to assist in his own defense.4 Based upon this presumption of
competency, the defendant bears the burden of proving that he is incompetent to
stand trial.5 In determining competence, the trial court considers the
"'defendant's appearance, demeanor, conduct, personal and family history, past
1 The case proceeded to trial on charges of murder in the second degree,
assault in the first degree, and assault in the second degree. The jury found
Lester not guilty of murder in the second degree and guilty of assault in the
second degree. The court dismissed and vacated the conviction for assault in
the second degree due to double jeopardy.
2 State v. Lewis, 141 Wn. App. 367, 381, 166 P.3d 786 (2007) (citing Pate
v. Robinson. 383 U.S. 375, 386, 86 S. Ct. 836, 15 L. Ed. 2d 815 (1966); In re
Pers. Restraint of Fleming. 142 Wn.2d 853, 861, 16 P.3d 610 (2001)).
3 Lewis, 141 Wn. App. at 381.
4 State v. Colev. 171 Wn. App. 177, 179, 286 P.3d 712 (2012), review
granted. 176 Wn.2d 1024 (2013).
5 Colev, 171 Wn. App. at 179.
No. 70124-0-1/6
behavior, medical and psychiatric reports and the statements of counsel.'"6 We
will not reverse a trial court's competency determination absent a manifest abuse
of discretion.7 "'A trial court abuses its discretion when its order is manifestly
unreasonable or based on untenable grounds' and it 'necessarily abuses its
discretion if it applies the incorrect legal standard.'"8
Here, the trial court found "by a preponderance of the evidence that the
defendant understands the nature of the proceedings against him and is able to
effectively assist counsel in the defense of his case." Based upon this finding,
the court concluded "by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is
competent to stand trial."
Lester argues that Dr. Neer's report and testimony are more credible than
Dr. Johnson's. "'Credibility determinations are for the trier of fact and are not
subject to appellate review. We must defer to the [trier of fact] on issues of
conflicting testimony, credibility of witnesses, and persuasiveness of the
evidence.'"9 The trial court had broad discretion to weigh the witnesses' reports
and testimony about Lester's competency. Although Lester did not testify at trial,
6 Fleming, 142 Wn.2d at 863 (quoting State v. Dodd, 70 Wn.2d 513, 514,
424 P.2d 302 (1967)).
7 Lewis, 141 Wn. App. at 381 (citing State v. Crenshaw, 27 Wn. App. 326,
330, 617 P.2d 1041 (1980)).
8 Kreidlerv. Cascade Nat. Ins. Co., No. 71063-0-1, 2014 WL 943108, at *7
(Wash. Ct. App. Mar. 10, 2014) (quoting Gillett v. Conner. 132 Wn. App. 818,
822, 133 P.3d 960 (2006)).
9 State v. Mashek, 177 Wn. App. 749, 756, 312 P.3d 774 (2013)
(alteration in original) (quoting State v. Liden, 138 Wn. App. 110, 117, 156 P.3d
259 (2007)).
No. 70124-0-1/7
the court had the opportunity to observe his appearance, demeanor, and conduct
in the courtroom.
The record indicates no irrational behavior. Lester does not show how
any noted cognitive impairments prevented him from understanding the nature of
the proceedings or effectively assisting his attorney. Lester fails to show that the
trial court abused its discretion when it determined that he was competent to
stand trial.
Conclusion
Because Lester fails to show that the trial court abused its discretion when
it found him competent to stand trial, we affirm.
?A^g>^n,
WE CONCUR:
^ ^•^v,
l-O rj} r;_;
C=3
•—
jr-
X" PP. 1
-o ' <~\
ZXi £2~*)r
ro
—-
— .1 )
2> ~\l ;'
i •- CO P" r
ro tn<-,J
»•
—1 r-—,-
O".