STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JULIO RIVERO(10-10-1089, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-5562-14T1
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Sep 14, 2017Background
- Defendant Richard R. Leoncini drove to Fort Dix in camouflage, left without his ID, made a U-turn, and failed to stop for a marked police car with lights and siren; he was charged with second-degree eluding.
- After initial court-ordered psychiatric screening (Feb. 2014) and temporary civil commitment with medication, the trial court ordered a second competency evaluation by psychologist Dr. Peter D. Paul (Oct. 2014). Dr. Paul concluded defendant was competent if he remained on medication.
- On the eve of trial (Feb. 25, 2015) the court held a competency hearing: defense counsel and the judge questioned defendant; counsel vouched that defendant was lucid and able to assist; the court found defendant competent.
- Defendant testified at trial, admitted running red lights, and was convicted by a jury of second-degree eluding; post-trial the court downgraded the conviction to third degree and sentenced him to a three-year flat term while ordering further mental-health treatment.
- On appeal defendant argued (1) the trial court should have sua sponte ordered an updated competency evaluation due to his courtroom behavior and possible medication noncompliance, and (2) the custodial sentence was excessive given his mental illness and suicidal tendencies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had a sua sponte duty to order an updated competency evaluation | State: Court reasonably relied on two expert evaluations, counsel’s observations, and the on-the-record competency colloquy; no further inquiry required | Leoncini: Court should have ordered a new evaluation because his courtroom rambling, history of medication noncompliance, and post-trial statements raised bona fide doubts about competency | Affirmed — no sua sponte duty; court reasonably relied on prior evaluations, counsel’s attestations, and defendant’s insistence to proceed |
| Whether defendant’s trial testimony/self-inculpatory statements required further competency inquiry | State: Statements were outside jury presence and did not, without counsel’s request, mandate added inquiry | Leoncini: Self-inculpatory and aberrant statements showed incompetence during trial | Held for State — statements did not compel further inquiry absent timely request |
| Whether a retrospective competency evaluation was warranted on appeal | State: Not required where contemporaneous expert reports and counsel observations uniformly supported competency | Leoncini: Appellate remand for retrospective evaluation could reconstruct competency doubts | Rejected — no basis for retrospective evaluation given consistent expert findings and record |
| Whether the three-year custodial sentence was excessive given mental illness | State: Trial court properly weighed aggravating/mitigating factors and downgraded conviction; sentence within discretion | Leoncini: Mental illness and suicide risk outweigh deterrence and justify noncustodial sentence | Affirmed — sentencing court properly balanced factors and exercised discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gorthy, 226 N.J. 516 (N.J. 2016) (procedural guidance on competency hearings and standards)
- State v. Purnell, 394 N.J. Super. 28 (App. Div. 2007) (reversal where State failed to meet burden to prove competency and counsel repeatedly raised doubts)
- State v. Lambert, 275 N.J. Super. 125 (App. Div. 1994) (trial court erred by denying competency inquiry when counsel raised bona fide doubts)
- State v. Latif, 134 N.J. Super. 441 (App. Div. 1975) (retrospective competency inquiry remand where competing expert opinions required further inquiry)
- State v. Jarbath, 114 N.J. 394 (N.J. 1989) (custodial sentence improper where serious injustice of imprisonment outweighed deterrence for a developmentally disabled defendant)
- State v. Bieniek, 200 N.J. 601 (N.J. 2010) (appellate deference to trial court sentencing discretion when Code principles followed)
- State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334 (N.J. 1984) (sentencing principles and standards)
- Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (U.S. 1975) (no fixed signs require competency hearings; trial judges retain authority to determine need for inquiry)