State of Washington v. Scott Emerson Evatt, 34963-2

Background

Scott Evatt was arrested July 6, 2015 after officers found a meth pipe; he admitted meth use and resisting officers; charged with third-degree assault, obstruction, and unlawful use of drug paraphernalia.
Evatt moved to represent himself; Judge Nevin ordered a competency exam under RCW 10.77 and Dr. Mark Duris found Evatt competent to stand trial and concluded substance-induced psychotic symptoms did not significantly impair his capacity to participate in his defense.
Despite the prosecutor later telling the court Dr. Duris wanted to revisit his opinion, no supplemental report or affidavit was produced and no new competency evaluation was ordered; Nevin allowed Evatt to waive counsel after a Faretta colloquy.
Case tried to the bench before a different judge; Evatt was convicted of third-degree assault and unlawful use of drug paraphernalia; obstruction was dismissed.
At sentencing Evatt had self-inflicted eye injury consistent with his delusional belief that police implanted a tracking device; the court sentenced him to 51 months confinement plus 12 months community custody for the felony (plus 90 days for the misdemeanor).
On appeal Evatt argued the court should have ordered a second competency evaluation or otherwise prevented self-representation; he also challenged the sentence as exceeding the statutory maximum. The State conceded the combined confinement + community custody exceeded the statutory maximum and the convictions were otherwise affirmed; case remanded for resentencing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Evatt)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether a second competency evaluation was required after prosecutor said Dr. Duris might wish to reevaluate	Prosecutor's report that Dr. Duris wanted to reevaluate raised doubt about competency and required a new evaluation under RCW 10.77	The prosecutor’s hearsay remark and unfiled plan did not present a factual basis sufficient to mandate a new competency hearing; no one formally moved with supporting facts	Court: No abuse of discretion — no sufficient factual showing to require reevaluation; original competency finding stands
Whether court erred in allowing Evatt to represent himself without a new Western State evaluation (competency to waive counsel)	Evatt: His mental illness and later delusional conduct show he lacked capacity to knowingly and intelligently waive counsel; a judge may deny pro se requests by mentally ill defendants and should have done so	State: Faretta colloquy, Dr. Duris’s report, and trial record supported an intelligent, voluntary waiver; prosecutor abandoned further challenge	Court: Waiver was knowing and intelligent; trial court did not abuse discretion in allowing self-representation
Whether sentence exceeded statutory maximum because community custody was included	Evatt: Combined confinement and community custody exceeded the statutory maximum for class C felony	State: Conceded error	Court: Agreed — combined 63 months exceeded 60-month statutory maximum for class C; remand for resentencing
Cumulative and other trial errors (late discovery, denial of continuances, evidentiary rulings, sufficiency)	Evatt: Multiple trial rulings, discovery timing, and denied continuances deprived him of a fair trial and insufficient evidence without officers’ testimony	State: Trial court exercised discretion properly; evidence (viewed in light most favorable to State) was sufficient	Court: No reversible error on these grounds; evidence sufficient; cumulative-error doctrine not implicated

Key Cases Cited

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (Sixth Amendment right to self-representation)
Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (2008) (competent-to-stand-trial standard may differ from competence to represent oneself)
In re Pers. Restraint of Rhome, 172 Wn.2d 654 (Wash. 2011) (waiver of counsel must be knowing and intelligent; mental illness considered)
State v. Madsen, 168 Wn.2d 496 (Wash. 2010) (limits on denying pro se requests; waiver standards)
State v. Hahn, 106 Wn.2d 885 (Wash. 1986) (burden on defendant to demonstrate invalid waiver)
State v. Reddrick, 166 Wn.2d 898 (Wash. 2009) (competency hearing standards and when court must order evaluation)
Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (1975) (competency is a legal determination informed but not controlled by experts)
State v. Sisouvanh, 175 Wn.2d 607 (Wash. 2012) (expert opinion is one factor in competency determinations)
State v. Boyd, 174 Wn.2d 470 (Wash. 2012) (combined confinement and community custody cannot exceed statutory maximum)