Rennich-Craig v. Russell
609 N.W.2d 123
S.D.
2000
Check Treatment

*1 Suzanne; rec- our review this than in- unreasonably us that he

ord convinces spent on this case. We the time creased entire amount of Suzanne the award claimed herein. fees appellate attorney Justice, MILLER, Chief SABERS, KONENKAMP Justices,

GILBERTSON, concur. CALDWELL, Judge, Circuit AMUNDSON, Justice, disqualified. SD 49 RENNICH-CRAIG, I. Petitioner

Lennis Appellant, RUSSELL, Duane Warden of Dakota Women’s Penitentiary, Appellee.

No. Supreme South Dakota. Court of Briefs Feb. Considered on 12, 2000. April Decided *2 Barnett, General,

Mark Attorney Gary General, Campbell, Assistant Attorney Pierre, Dakota, Attorneys appel- lee.

SABERS, Justice. (Rennich) Rennieh-Craig

[¶ 1.] Lennis summary motioned for that the trial court failed to hold a mental health hearing pursuant to SDCL 23A-7-16. The habeas court denied the motion and quashed the writ of habeas Ren- appeals. nich We reverse and remand.

FACTS Renpich, 22, 1950, born October charged forgeries six and 20 bur-

glaries in June of 1996. These crimes were May committed between 28 and June July On appeared arraignment, prelimi- waived the and, nary hearing pursuant to a agreement, entered mentally ill to one count forgery two counts of burglaries. The State dis- missed the remaining 23 counts. [¶ 3.] The trial court asked: “Is there a basis, factual any would include ports from Community Counseling, to indi- cate the status of the [defendant's mental presented condition?” The State numer- ous documents to the replied: court and Yes, Your Honor. We report have the police from the department itself, check the affidavit of forgery, and pictures of the negotiating [defendant this check at the ... [blank. We also have the evaluation by Dr. Park, psychiatrist at our mental health center, done earlier year and also information earlier year from the Human Services outlining Center Miner, Firm, Lome A. Stiles Law the [four] different medications the [de- Mitchell, Dakota, Attorney peti- fendant should be taking and what tioner appellant. are for. added). jail.3 county in- at the He noted that she is no record There

(emphasis in- verbally, but “was the court considered tried communicate dication by the State. He presented say able a word.” also noted formation court, merely State claims [was] that she not aware of what she “is information, substantially accepting this aware that she charged with. She *3 23A-7-16. complied with SDCL go to to court trial. She is has the when not substantiate the State does or attorney of the district aware the role the actually considered informa- trial court hearing. court judge [S]he Instead, reflects that record tion.1 lawyer with to de cooperate able to that immediately determined trial court His hearing.” herself at the court fend “competent plea” enter a Rennich was of Rennich broadened from diagnosis accept stated: “I will and (1) Disorder; previous day: Acute Stress ill, find there is and also that (2) Deficit, Disorder, Motor Conversion the plea.” a factual basis for (3) Personality; and Aphonia; Antisocial received 4.] Within information psychotic [¶ He rule out brief disorder.” sets docu- were three court competent to concluded that she was not mental health. related to Rennich’s ments trial. stand pre- first set involved four [¶ 5.] The 26, 1996, the July On trial court [¶ 8.] Dako- scription documents from in the years Rennich to 10 sentenced March Human dated ta Services Center Penitentiary each Dakota State 27, set 1996. These documents forth five burglary years of two counts of and medication, di- purpose, its name forgery, one count of all sentences to possible side effects. rections and consecutively. ap- Rennich did served was a psycholo- second set 6.] The peal. 13, February 1996. report dated gist’s 10, 1998, Rennich an April On filed recently report Rennich indicated that application for writ of with attempted diagnosed her suicide and appointed and an amended Counsel was stress disorder and clinical posttraumatic corpus was filed petition for writ depression. writ August 1998. amended psychi- set involved two 7.] The third (1) received ineffective alleged that she: Dr. completed atric evaluations counsel; deprived of was assistance of 7, 1996, Dr. Park. Choong-Geun March On (a) was process because she due unresponsive Rennich was Park noted that (b) no when entered her and diag- in a state.” He and “disassociative held in hearing was accor- mental health her with “acute stress disorder nosed 23A-7-16; dance SDCL disor- posttraumatic stress recurrence punishment. cruel and unusual ceived evaluation, attached der.” The second Rennich first, October It On was dated March summary judgment arguing Dr. met with Rennich moved indicated that Park single-parent of three children argues a wonderful that Rennich waived as 1. The State also First, attending University. two the State After this issue for reasons. was Huron who arraignment, prior to Rennich claims that physical rape, condition her mental and agreed of these documents to the State's use family Her and friends stated deteriorated. mental to establish a factual basis extremely that her criminal behavior Second, object did not illness. developed an She also "uncharacteristic.” hearing before failure hold a trial court’s eating gambling addiction. disorder accepting plea. times four and attempted suicide She seven years. one-half posttraumatic diagnosis disorder 2. The stress being raped an unknown stems from her apparently jail for unrelated 3.She rape, April Prior to the assailant on family offense. describe Rennich members friends a compe- failed hold the trial court is not a substitute for tency in direct violation review. direct Because habeas 23A-7-16. The habeas court determined upon a collateral attack final judg- fact genuine no issues of material ment, our scope of review limited. On existed, but still denied the motion because review, has the defect, procedural the issue not a proof. initial burden of We review the defect, and, therefore, jurisdictional could findings habeas court’s factual under the not be raised on habeas. clearly erroneous standard. In November of Dr. ¶ Weber, Weddell 2000 SD Bean, psychiatric expert, ap David Weber, Sund v. (quoting pointed to evaluate “mental Rennich’s ¶ 225) *4 competency in during 1996 the various (other omitted)). Questions citations stages underlying legal of the crimi [and] law, however, are de novo. reviewed Jen- April 27, nal proceedings.” On after ¶ Dooley, ner v. report, Rennich received Dr. Bean’s N.W.2d grounds waived all the for relief habeas except within for the issue the motion sum [¶ WHETHER A TRIAL 13.] COURT’S mary The judgment. writ was subse OF A VIOLATION SUBSTANTIVE quently quashed proba and a certificate of STATUTORY PROCEDURE IS SUB- ble appeals cause was issued. Rennich TO JECT IN CHALLENGE HABEAS habeas denial of court’s her motion CORPUS PROCEEDINGS. summary judgment.4 In the South Dakota

STANDARD OF REVIEW Legislature 23A-7-16, enacted SDCL Our plead standard of review for which allowed a defendant a well appeal established. but ill.5 The intent this legis- prison, developed 4. While in prisoned Rennich debili- ... or otherwise restrained of illness, tating sympathetic dystrophy, liberty[.]”). reflex [their] Moeller, completed had which left her confined to a Con- In wheelchair. attempting get his sentence and sequently, degree of care his that she conviction declared "null and void.’’ beyond pris- offered in the women’s moot, deciding appeal whether the we on. on October Governor judg- stated that "[a] case is moot when Janklow commuted Rennich’s condi- sentence ment, rendered, practical if will have no signing parole agreement tioned on her upon legal existing effect controversy." with the Board of Pardons and Paroles. Pur- Id. at Because Moeller not im- agreement, suant to the Rennich is confined prisoned liberty, or restrained his Kingsbury Memorial in Manor Lake appeal was declared moot. Rennich’s situ- Preston, Dakota for medical assistance substantially ation is different from Moel- care, subject to the usual and con- terms ler’s Rennich is under the control parole. ditions of State, custody liberty of the is in following demonstrates some of the by restrained the State and our determina- parole: limitations of On October legal will have a tion substantial effect on- formally requested that she existing controversy. Kingsbury be released Manor to 5. Mental illness is defined 22-1- attend the on her Motion Sum 2(24) as: mary Judgment. request, directed to court, the habeas involved the trans sheriff psychiatric [A] substantial disorder porting her to the courthouse. The thought, mood or behavior affects a request. court denied Because Rennich person at the time of the commission of the clearly custody under the and control of person’s impairs judg- and which offense State, ment, this habeas action is not moot. incap- not to the extent that he is 21-27-1; Solem, See SDCL Moeller v. knowing wrongfulness able of of his act. (S.D. 1985) (holding N.W.2d illness Mental does not include abnormali- only relief is available only repeated ties manifested be criminal or detained, "committed, persons who im- otherwise antisocial conduct. 1887, grounds at least treat- Since provide mental health lation was to may granted be whose defense which habeas relief ment for those individuals who, nev- legal insanity, in Dakota have been set forth falls short of ertheless, of treatment grounds were need states legislature. One those does not need illness. “One may their mental granted that habeas relief when special- degree medical with a possess process “the is defective some substan- that incarcera- ty in realize psychiatry 21-27- tial form law.” SDCL ill defendant without tion 16(3). likely care will exac- psychiatric structured Security Savings Bank v. 18.] In of his mental erbate the manifestations Mueller, (S.D.1981), N.W.2d Trill,

illness.” Commonwealth presented with a similar this court was (1988). Pa.Super. 543 A.2d Security, an order to arrest issue. Blue, 684, People also 428 Mich. docketing the Mueller was served after pur- (stating against him. default taken that men- pose is two-fold: to ensure requires SDCL 15-22-9 service professional tally ill receive defendants docketing judgment. There was before incarcerated; “to treatment while filed a habeas appeal. no direct Mueller respon- public criminally assure the that a im- argued that service was mentally ill will not be sible and defendant *5 The proper under SDCL 15-22-9. habeas having ... [society] returned to without reversing the writ. and court denied necessary psychiatric received care after decision, remanding court stated: sentencing”). corpus Although habeas substi- plea guilty accepting [¶ Before 15.] appeal, appellant may tute direct ill, mentally legislature requires but jurisdictional which ren- assert errors li by a that the defendant be “examined void. In the ders first the court ... ex psychiatrist censed jurisdictional corpus, context psychiatric reports.” SDCL amine!] expansive given is an construction. error is 23A-7-16. The trial court also statuto course, personal and Of this includes rily hearing “hold subject jurisdiction, but pro- matter due ” mental condition.... Id. defendant’s compliance with cess violations there is a factual basis “[I]f statutory procedures substantive court can conclude that the defendant subject in habeas cor- challenge also offense, ill of the mentally at time proceedings. pus plea accepted.” Id. See State shall be also omitted) (internal at citations Id. 762-63 (S.D. 269, v. 272 Whitney, 486 N.W.2d added).6 (emphasis 1992) must (stating that the factual basis justify finding “a that the criminal defen Supreme The [¶ United States 19.] mentally dant was ill the time of procedural has determined Court also offense.”). alleged in an so as to result unfair errors obvious raised hearing may be argues [¶ 16.] The State Samuels, rel. Eagles v. United States ex corpus not entitled to habeas based relief 313, 319, 329 U.S. S.Ct. statutory violation; on a i.e. trial that the (1946), the United States L.Ed. failing court violated SDCL 23A-7-16 by stated: function of Supreme “[t]he Court a mental health hearing to hold before practice not to correct pleas Rennich’s but accepting guilty only proce- disagree. ill. We but to ascertain whether mentally guilty argues acceptance cases that the of Gross court's State Solem, argument 446 N.W.2d support its that this issue ill. Gross Everitt Solem, (S.D. 1989); Everitt v. 412 N.W.2d be raised in habeas. can not Here, (S.D.1987). the issue is sub of these cases was whether there issue in both during stantially presented different because there no hear was a factual basis sufficient Therefore, ing. do not control. hearing to the trial these cases support the mental health complained dure Sutton, of has resulted in an un- ing State v. (S.D.1982)).

lawful detention.” Instead appointing a li- for a writ of habeas is available to psychiatrist censed and holding a hearing remedy procedural errors made at if health, to determine Rennich’s mental procedures those are of such a nature or trial court concluded that a factual basis magnitude to render entire detention existed based on reports dated February unlawful. Id. at 67 S.Ct. at 91 13, 1996, 7-8, March 1996 and March L.Ed. at 315. 1996. Clearly reports those and docu- ments do not establish that Rennich was Consequently, the issue is 20.] wheth- mentally ill at the time allegedly com- er the trial failure to comply court’s - mitted these crimes May 28 to June procedur- SDCL 23A-7-16 is a substantive Here, there is no factual basis al error that unlawful resulted deten- prior evaluations of mental tion. illness were not brought current The failure to conduct a period time when the crimes were commit- mental hearing, health as review, ted. Nor does this if any, of un- 23A-7-16, irregulari is not a mere sworn documentary evidence constitute a ty. See our recent case of State hearing: “the mere consideration of a re- ¶¶ Anderson, 19-21, port moving desk, across one’s is not a (reversing 486-87 and re hearing.” Davis, Commonwealth v. manding Anderson’s conviction for failure (1992) (citation Pa. 612 A.2d 23A-7-16). comply with SDCL omitted). In failing to conduct the hear- trial court must conduct the before ing, the trial court perform failed to its can even statutory responsibility to conduct an inde- accepted. By express terms, statutory pendent and meaningful procedure to the hearing and process assessment timely fully evaluate Rennich’s mental *6 mandatory automatically triggered health. once the attempts defendant to enter a [¶ 23.] We determine that the failure to plea of guilty mentally ill. The hear hold mandatory hearing was “defec- ing cannot be ignored. waived or in tive [a] substantial form Krause v. Fogliani, 82 Nev. 421 P.2d 21-27-16(3). law.” SDCL This defect re- court, that (holding “the sulted in the unlawful detention of Ren- sua sponte, a compe to order nich. we reverse the habeas tency hearing. The failure of the defen court’s denial of Rennich’s motion for dant to request that hearing did not ‘waive’ summary judgment and that remand so right.”). his contradictory “[I]t is to argue Rennich can be evaluated that licensed a defendant may incompetent, be psychiatrist and a yet hearing can be held knowingly to intelligently or h[er] ‘waive’ right determine whether she was ill have the court determine h[er] capacity the time these criminal to stand offenses were com- (quoting trial.” Id. Pate Robinson, v. 375, 384, mitted. 383 U.S. 86 S.Ct. 15 L.Ed.2d (citing AMUNDSON, Justice, concurs. Taylor States, United 282 F.2d (8th Cir.1960)). MILLER, Justice, Chief [¶ 25.] concurs specially.

[¶ 22.] determining whether a factual basis for a of [¶ 26.] KONENKAMP and exists, “the trial may court GILBERTSON, Justices, dissent. transcripts admit of testimony, oral testi MILLER, Chief Justice (concurring mony, or other sworn tangi statements or specially) ble evidence which satisfy will court of the the existence of the factual for totally agree basis I with Justice Ko- plea.” Whitney, (quot- at 272 nenkamp person that a parole parolees in petition. Concededly, remain bring a habeas entitled Department of legal custody of evidence that such any if there is subject authority of or oth- Corrections and being confined physically person until of Pardons and Paroles liberty, her then Board of restrained erwise Nonetheless, pa expire. their sentences Because action warranted. “imprisoned” “detained” Ren- rolees are not or indicates that record evidence scant physical custody may placed in fact confined to not be may physically in be nich Manor, they in prison I concur with the back unless violate con Kingsbury parole. People ditions their ex rel. majority opinion. Morris, Ill.App.3d Williams ostensibly Although Rennich Ill.Dec. N.E.2d parole agree- of her paroled, condition history and nature of (“Considering specifically that she is to states ment corpus, we believe that actual cus Memorial Man- Kingsbury “confined ac tody necessary maintaining and care.” This or for medical assistance tion.”). Furthermore, is in implies the State intended provision parole danger losing no status. No facility; within the would remain parole that she has violated her alleges one such a condition was a accordingly, is not awaiting parole conditions and she sup- Additional straint on freedom. proceedings. revocation lies the fact that port for this conclusion likewise, held [¶ 32.] Other states have argued Rennich was the State has never split although authority there is a fact, custody. Rennieh’s motion ha- parolees whether can maintain a state transport hearing, her habeas Nadel, beas action. See Andrea G. [her] to allow to attend “move[d] court J.D., Custody is a Person in When sug- hearing,” denied. This also Purpose Governmental Authorities that Rennich’s freedom was re- gests Remedy Cor- Exercise State State, notwithstanding strained Cases, 26 pus A.L.R.4th parolee. as a status —Modem (1983). However, reasoned de- the better there was evidence that 29.] Because no persons parole cisions hold that State, by the Rennich was “confined” liberty to such longer have their restrained appropriate vehicle degree entitled which to merits of case. reach the *7 ha- through extraordinary relief afforded People ex rel. corpus proceedings. beas KONENKAMP, (dissenting). Justice Markley, 26 N.Y.2d Wilder v. authority hear We do have not (N.Y.1970). 672, 255 N.E.2d 784 N.Y.S.2d appeal this habeas Governor Painter, S.D. re petitioner’s sentence and commuted not (person free on bond placed parole. Our statutes she relief). eligible fof habeas petitioners provide petitioner may have other to relief unless are “commit- entitled conviction, challenge remedies detained, imprisoned or restrained” ted or prison, because she has been released liberty. 21-27-1. of their SDCL remedy. I proper is not a in their specify petitions must petitioners petition. would dismiss concerning the facts their detention and custody they are detained. whose GILBERTSON, Justice, joins this certainly 21-27-3. The dissent. alleges, respon- custody of the one Russell, warden Duane dent A penitentiary. writ issued

women’s as he cannot him would have no effect her or her. deliver release