2018 COA 94
Colo. Ct. App.2018Background
- Defendant Ari Misha Liggett was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life without parole; a concurrent three-year sentence for probation revocation was also imposed. A timely notice of appeal was filed while Liggett was competent.
- After the appeal was docketed, the district court (on limited remand from the Court of Appeals) found Liggett incompetent to proceed and incompetent to knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waive counsel or dismiss the appeals.
- Appellate counsel moved to indefinitely stay the appeals and for a limited remand to restore competence so Liggett could decide to terminate counsel and dismiss the appeals; the People opposed an indefinite stay and argued the appeals could proceed.
- The Court of Appeals considered (1) whether an appeal must be stayed indefinitely when the appellant is found incompetent after filing a notice of appeal, (2) whether the court can order a limited remand for competency restoration while the appeal proceeds, and (3) whether rulings on motions to dismiss counsel and to dismiss the appeal should be stayed.
- The court held (a) the direct appeals should proceed (denying an indefinite stay) provided Liggett can later raise in postconviction proceedings any issues not raised on appeal because of incompetence; (b) the court has authority to order a limited remand under section 13-4-102(3) to restore competence for purposes of resolving the pending motions; and (c) rulings on Liggett’s requests to terminate counsel and to dismiss the appeal must be stayed until competence is restored.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Liggett) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the direct appeal must be stayed indefinitely after a post-appeal finding of incompetence | Appeals may proceed because appellate work largely relies on the record and any gaps can be remedied later by postconviction relief | An incompetent defendant cannot meaningfully be represented; proceeding violates Sixth and due process rights and risks forfeiture of postconviction/federal habeas rights | Appeal may proceed; indefinite stay denied. Appellant may later raise omitted issues in postconviction proceedings if incompetence caused omission |
| Whether the court may order a limited remand to restore competence while appeal is pending | Generally district court loses jurisdiction on appeal; but not opposed to coordination if necessary | Requested limited remand so Liggett can regain competence to decide counsel/appeal questions | Court has authority under §13-4-102(3) to order limited remand for restoration because competency restoration is necessary to decide pending motions |
| Whether the court should stay ruling on Liggett’s motions to terminate counsel and to dismiss the appeal | Court can withhold ruling until competence is clarified | An incompetent defendant cannot validly waive counsel or dismiss appeals; rulings must await restoration | Ruling on those motions is stayed until Liggett is restored to competence (or mandate issues) |
| What remedial access Liggett has if counsel omits claims due to incompetence | Any such omissions can be raised in postconviction proceedings; state and federal tolling doctrines may apply | Proceeding with the appeal would forfeit time-sensitive postconviction rights | Court orders that postconviction limits in Crim. P. 35(c) (time and certain claim limits) shall not apply to claims not raised on appeal due to incompetence; federal limitations may be equitably tolled on appropriate showing |
Key Cases Cited
- Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (defendant must be competent to waive counsel or plead guilty)
- Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (competency standard: ability to consult with counsel and factual/rational understanding)
- Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 (right to effective assistance of appellate counsel)
- Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 (right to counsel on first-tier appeal)
- Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (due process requires competency for trial proceedings)
- Rees v. Peyton, 384 U.S. 312 (defendant must be competent to abandon appeals)
- McCoy v. Louisiana, 138 S. Ct. 1500 (certain fundamental decisions reserved to defendant)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (equitable tolling of federal habeas limitations may apply)