State v. Tepper, 1 CA-CR 16-0294

Background

In Dec. 2012 Allen Tepper was observed throwing a rock that shattered a building window; he was later charged (Dec. 2013) with criminal damage originally as a Class 5 felony.
Over ~2 years Tepper underwent multiple Rule 11 competency examinations and restoration efforts and was repeatedly held in high-security single-inmate cells at the Fourth Avenue Jail.
The superior court at times found Tepper incompetent but restorable; by Dec. 15, 2015 the court found him competent to stand trial.
In Jan. 2016 the court released Tepper from custody; he failed to appear for trial two weeks later and the court proceeded in absentia after the State amended the charge to a Class 1 misdemeanor (defense counsel did not object to the amendment).
The court convicted Tepper at a bench trial on misdemeanor criminal damage (replacement cost testified as $2,331), issued a bench warrant when he was absent, later arrested him, and sentenced him to 180 days with credit for time served.
Tepper appealed, raising claims about incompetence, inadequacy of Rule 11 procedures/treatment, trial in absentia, and constitutionality of his lengthy pretrial/post-trial detention; the court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Tepper's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Competency to stand trial / sua sponte proceedings	Tepper argued his Jan. 2016 courtroom conduct showed he was incompetent and not restorable, so charges should be dismissed	Court had repeatedly ordered Rule 11 exams; prior findings and direct observations supported competence	No abuse of discretion — court did not need to sua sponte reopen competency; earlier findings and context supported competence
Adequacy of Rule 11 procedures / lack of treatment	Tepper argued procedures were inadequate and he received no restoration treatment, only observation/delay	State: procedures were constitutionally adequate; treatment was offered and refused; Tepper does not contest the Dec. 15, 2015 competency finding	No due process violation shown; procedures adequate and no prejudice established
Trial in absentia / waiver of presence	Tepper said he could not voluntarily waive presence due to mental condition and trial should not proceed in absentia	Court had notified Tepper of trial date; medical evaluations showed competence; he previously expressed desire to be tried in absentia	Court did not abuse discretion — presumption of voluntary absence not rebutted
Pretrial / post-trial detention conditions and length	Tepper contended lengthy high-security pretrial confinement and 26-day post-arrest detention were unconstitutional	State: detention pending sentencing and much delay attributable to competency process and Tepper’s own conduct; sentencing generally requires defendant’s presence	Court expressed dismay at lengthy confinement but held these claims improper on direct appeal; no reversible error on post-trial detention claim

Key Cases Cited

Bishop v. Superior Court, 150 Ariz. 404 (court may sua sponte address competency; judge’s firsthand observations relevant)
Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (due process requires procedures to protect competency and sua sponte inquiry when facts suggest incompetence)
Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (commitment duration must bear reasonable relation to purpose of restoration)
State v. Kemp, 185 Ariz. 52 (abuse of discretion review for failure to hold competency proceedings)
State v. Glassel, 211 Ariz. 33 (deference to trial court’s competency findings based on firsthand observations)
Haygood v. Younger, 769 F.2d 1350 (detention beyond sentence termination may violate Eighth Amendment/due process when due to deliberate indifference)
Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (cited by Tepper but distinguishable; involves compelled extraction of evidence)
United States v. Toscanino, 500 F.2d 267 (cited but distinguishable; addresses unlawful government conduct in foreign seizures)