2015 NMCA 082
N.M. Ct. App.2015Background
- Defendant charged (2005) with 23 violent counts arising from an armed confinement and threats; trial later resulted in convictions and a 193‑year sentence.
- Early evaluations (2008) showed IQ ≈ 62; district judge Driggers held a competency (§31-9-1.1) hearing and found Defendant incompetent, dangerous, and ordered commitment to NMBHI for treatment (§31-9-1.2).
- At a 90‑day review (§31-9-1.3) the treatment supervisor (Dr. Holman) reported Defendant was still incompetent, dangerous, and unlikely to attain competency; parties stipulated and Judge Driggers reaffirmed incompetence and untreatability.
- Case reassigned; a §31-9-1.6 hearing in November 2009 was limited to whether Defendant had "mental retardation" (IQ/adaptive deficits). No competency evidence was presented and the parties framed the hearing narrowly.
- On her own motion, Judge Schultz (without notice or opportunity to be heard) reversed prior rulings and found Defendant competent beyond a reasonable doubt; Defendant was tried in 2012, convicted, and sentenced.
- The appellate court found procedural and substantive due process violations, held Defendant is mentally retarded as a matter of law, reversed the competency ruling and convictions, and remanded for civil commitment proceedings under §43-1-1.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Judge Schultz’s sua sponte competency finding (at a §31-9-1.6 hearing limited to mental retardation) violated procedural due process | State did not present competency evidence; but Judge could revisit competency | Defendant: no notice, no opportunity to present evidence, prior finding of incompetence remained in effect | Court: Violation of procedural due process — reversal required (Judge Schultz deprived Defendant of notice, hearing, and findings) |
| Whether convictions violate substantive due process because Defendant was incompetent at trial | State presumed competent after Judge Schultz’s ruling | Defendant: previously adjudicated incompetent, State bore burden to prove competence and did not do so | Court: Substantive due process violated; convictions set aside |
| Whether Defendant meets statutory definition of mental retardation | State questioned or sought evaluation | Defendant: IQ ≤70 and adaptive deficits; presumption of mental retardation applies | Court: IQ and adaptive behavior evidence unrebutted; Defendant has mental retardation as a matter of law |
| Proper remedy/disposition (criminal commitment vs civil commitment) | State: proceed under statutes as applicable | Defendant: criminal commitment improper if mental retardation, dangerous, and untreatable | Court: Criminal commitment barred; remand for §43-1-1 civil commitment proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (state court must inquire into competency when sufficient evidence presented)
- Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480 (due process requires notice, hearing, an independent decisionmaker, and written statement of reasons)
- United States v. Cornejo-Sandoval, 564 F.3d 1225 (competency inquiry is procedural right not dispensed by demeanor)
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (due process requires written findings explaining basis for adverse actions)