State v. Linares, 35,407

Background

In 2011 Desiree Linares was charged (as a serious youthful offender) in connection with the death of her foster parent; indictment later amended to felony-murder counts and related offenses.
A court-ordered predispositional evaluation by Dr. Susan Cave (Dec. 2012) reported an IQ of 68 and diagnosed mild mental retardation; she later opined Linares was incompetent to proceed.
The State sought an independent neuropsychological evaluation; the district court permitted the State to evaluate but allowed Dr. Cave to attend and observe to avoid further delay. The State refused to proceed if Dr. Cave would be present, and the court quashed the order for the independent exam.
After a contested hearing (Sept. 11, 2014), the Twelfth Judicial District Court found Linares’s IQ was 68, she was mentally retarded, not likely to become competent within a reasonable time, and posed a risk to others; criminal proceedings were dismissed and civil commitment to DOH followed.
The State appealed, arguing (1) the court abused discretion by allowing Dr. Cave to attend the State’s proposed independent evaluation (effectively denying an independent exam); (2) the incompetency finding was unsupported; and (3) statutory procedural requirements for DOH dangerousness evaluation/commitment were not followed.
The New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion, substantial evidence supported incompetency, and DOH conducted the required dangerousness evaluation before commitment proceedings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Linares)	Held
Whether permitting the court-appointed psychologist (Dr. Cave) to attend the State’s independent evaluation was an abuse of discretion / effectively denied an independent exam	Allowing Dr. Cave to observe made the State’s exam non-independent and violated professional norms; court abused discretion	Court’s decision was aimed at avoiding further delay and ensuring quick resolution; observation did not allow participation	Court: No abuse of discretion—observation was a reasonable exercise of discretion given delay and speedy-trial concerns; State could decline and court quashed the ordered exam
Whether the court’s finding that Linares was incompetent to stand trial due to mental retardation was supported by substantial evidence	Competency was disputed; prior reports contained inconsistencies and some evidence suggested competence (e.g., earlier opinion of minimal competence)	Linares argued the evidence (IQ 68, testing showing inability to understand core legal concepts) supported incompetency	Court: Substantial evidence supports incompetency—IQ below 70 presumption plus testimony showing inability to consult rationally with counsel and understand proceedings; no abuse of discretion
Whether DOH performed the statutorily required dangerousness evaluation before civil commitment proceedings commenced	The State contended the trial court/records did not show the required DOH dangerousness evaluation occurred before commitment proceedings	Linares pointed to the DOH petition and subsequent Thirteenth Judicial District hearing where DOH found imminent likelihood of harm and committed her	Court: Requirement met—DOH evaluated and filed a petition; Thirteenth Judicial District held a hearing and committed Linares; procedures complied with §31-9-1.6(B)–(C)

Key Cases Cited

State v. Jones, 148 N.M. 1, 229 P.3d 474 (2010) (serious youthful offender sentencing requires adult sanctions)
State v. Garcia, 128 N.M. 721, 998 P.2d 186 (2000) (ordering subsequent competency evaluations is discretionary)
State v. Lopez, 91 N.M. 779, 581 P.2d 872 (1978) (standard of review for competency rulings)
State v. Flores, 135 N.M. 759, 93 P.3d 1264 (2004) (§31-9-1.6 procedure for mental retardation competency determinations)
State v. Rotherham, 122 N.M. 246, 923 P.2d 1131 (1996) (defendant’s competency standard: consult with counsel rationally, understand proceedings, assist in defense)
State v. Gutierrez, 355 P.3d 93 (N.M. Ct. App. 2015) (interpreting DOH dangerousness evaluation requirement under §31-9-1.6)
State v. Smallwood, 141 N.M. 178, 152 P.3d 821 (2007) (procedural posture for appeals from competency/dismissal rulings)
In re Doe, 98 N.M. 540, 650 P.2d 824 (1982) (limits appellate review where arguments not raised)