2014 COA 173
Colo. Ct. App.2014Background
- Wingfield, an Arapahoe County Jail inmate, was found with tools and a shank after deputies heard sounds and he said, “Flush it. Flush it,” and was charged with possession of contraband and related counts; escape counts were later dismissed.
- An initial competency evaluation (Sept. 2007) found him competent; the court held an October 11, 2007 competency hearing in Wingfield’s absence after defense counsel waived his presence.
- Wingfield repeatedly requested a second competency evaluation/hearing between 2008–2009; the trial court denied multiple requests, at times after interviewing Dr. Mozer by telephone.
- Wingfield sought to assert a choice-of-evils defense, claiming threats from cellmates if he resisted an escape; the trial court barred the defense as inadequate because alternatives (telling jailers/requesting removal) were available.
- Wingfield was convicted of first-degree possession of contraband (dangerous instrument), adjudicated a habitual offender, and sentenced to 18 years; he appealed arguing errors relating to competency proceedings and denial of the choice-of-evils defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defense counsel validly waived Wingfield’s presence at the competency hearing | Price: defendant has a right to be present at critical stages; waiver must be knowing and court must ensure it | Wingfield: counsel’s waiver deprived him of presence at a critical stage and was improper | Court: competency hearings are critical stages, counsel cannot waive presence; but Wingfield showed no prejudice — his presence would not have been useful, so no reversible error |
| Whether court erred by denying multiple requests for a second competency evaluation/hearing and failing to follow former §16-8-110(2)(a) procedures | Wingfield: procedural statutory errors and denial of examinations violated due process and abused discretion | People: trial court had discretion; Wingfield failed to show bona fide doubt or offer proof from psychiatrists that would change outcome | Court: reviewed for plain/error and abuse of discretion; procedural lapses were not plain error and denial of additional exams was within discretion (harmless beyond a reasonable doubt even if error) |
| Whether the trial court erred in excluding a choice-of-evils defense based on threats from cellmates | Wingfield: threats made him reasonably believe he would be killed if he didn’t assist; he exhausted alternatives until removed request denied | People: Wingfield had viable alternatives (notify jailers/request removal) and did not make sufficient factual offer to satisfy elements | Court: rejected defense — although threat was imminent, alternatives existed and court properly excluded choice-of-evils instruction |
Key Cases Cited
- Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730 (U.S. 1987) (due process limits on defendant’s right to be present at proceedings)
- Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1934) (presence required only to the extent absence thwarts a fair hearing)
- Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (U.S. 1988) (waiver of rights must be voluntary, knowing, intelligent)
- People v. Price, 240 P.3d 557 (Colo. App. 2010) (court’s responsibility to ensure defendant’s waiver of presence is valid)
- People v. Miller, 113 P.3d 743 (Colo. 2005) (standard for review of unpreserved constitutional errors)
- Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (U.S. 1960) (competency standard: understand proceedings and assist counsel)
- Andrews v. People, 800 P.2d 607 (Colo. 1990) (elements for choice-of-evils defense)
- Bloom v. People, 185 P.3d 797 (Colo. 2008) (competency/Dusky application)
- People v. Morino, 743 P.2d 49 (Colo. App. 1987) (raising bona fide doubt of competency; court discretion)
- People v. Corichi, 18 P.3d 807 (Colo. App. 2000) (competency and due process considerations)