*1 310 STOVER, By His Mother
Johnny Friend, Henrietta HOLBERT Next HAMILTON, Acting Commissioner Pat Mental Health Services 2d 604 S.W. Arkansas
Supreme Court of September Opinion delivered denied October Rehearing *2 Central Services, Legal Inc., Arkansas by: Stockley Griffin J. Cromwell, Rock, R. Little appellant. for James Clark, Steve Atty. Gen., by: Ross, Deputy Atty. Robert R. Gen., Rock, Little appellee. for February Purtle, On I. Henriet- Justice. John Holbert,
ta as mother and next friend Johnny Stover, filed petition for a writ corpus of habeas Court County, of Pulaski alleged Arkansas. She her son was illegal- ly confined in the Rock, Arkansas State Hospital in Little Arkansas. The chancellor ruled petitioner being was legally held pursuant order of commitment Franklin County Circuit Court under Ark. Stat. Ann. 41-612 (Repl. (1) be held he could not appeal, petitioner urges
On him to commit used year statute than one for more (2) that the circuit trial and mentally unfit to stand if he was insanity him acquit reasons authority had no agree We trial. incompetent to stand as he remained long the second. disagree on but argument with the first 21, 1977, with first petitioner charged was December On hospital the state committed to murder and was degree 17, 1978, January examination on same date. On suffering from stating petitioner report capaci- the mental Psychosis, and he did not have Korsakov’s effectively against him or to ty proceedings understand the upon report Basing in his defense. its decision assist *3 County Circuit Court committed the Franklin hospital, was hospital until he was cured or petitioner to the state 7, July was entered on restored to reason. This order 1978. 21, 1979, attorney a filed mo- September petitioner’s On sanity. appellant’s The stated that rehearing on motion tion for had never been alleged at the time of the offense condition sought speedy The dis- determined the court. motion 5, case, and a held on October hearing the was position of (1) guilty by petitioner determined to be not The Court 1979- (2) petitioner defect and of mental disease or reason A and others. written order to to himself presented 1979, 12, petitioner and was effect was filed on December custody hospital the state director of committed to 41-612. Ark. Stat. Ann. pursuant to 22, 1980, corpus was February petition for habeas On County Chancery seeking Court in the Pulaski authority of petition challenged The petitioner. release of him acquit while County the Franklin Circuit Court to disease, argued and it suffering from mental was still him the not used to confine the criminal statutes could year. period for a excess of one state 19, 1980, an chancellor entered order on March County which concluded that the Franklin Circuit had Court jurisdiction subject matter and found order of the circuit court proper pursuant to be Ark. Stat. Ann. further chancellor held that constitutionality committing statute has been presented pur- reasons challenged there were no other which re- Ann. to Ark. Stat. suant petitioner. release of quired Chancery County
There is that the Pulaski dispute jurisdiction parties subject Court had and the over upon petition matter. rule is well established determines corpus habeas whether com- mitment regular issuing on its face and whether the State, had jurisdiction. Mitchell v. S.W. 2d (1961). We now consider whether the Pulaski Court properly considered the Franklin Circuit Court commitment of December Appellant-petitioner argues the circuit 1979. court is void on face its and relies upon Ark. Stat. (Repl. 1977), which states: who,
No person as a result defect, of mental disease or lacks to understand the proceedings against him or to effectively assist in his own defense shall be tried, convicted, or sentenced for the commission of offense so long such incapacity endures. appellant’s
It contention that acquittal by *4 Franklin County Circuit Court amounted to a trial. We agree that the prevented statute the court from a having trial for the appellant so as long disability his existed. We think it im- is portant concurrently to consider Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-609 1977), which states:
On the of the report pursuant (§ basis to 41- 605 § 605), the may, court hearing after a if hearing a is re- quested, enter judgment of ground on the of mental that, disease or if it defect is satisfied at the time of the conduct charged, the defendant lacked capacity, as a defect, result of mental disease or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law or appreciate to the criminality of his conduct.
The Commentary following this in indicates that statute defect, the lack where of mental or of extreme disease cases clear, trial the can part the defendant on of responsibility the hospitalized can be and defendant be avoided 41-612. provisions of Ark. § Ark. Stat. provisions with the of We are also concerned if a defendant is holds 41-612 which substance § and the or defect mental disease grounds on the of acquitted or the of to himself presents a risk finds that the defend- others, order the court shall of person property the director of state custody the of the ant committed a person If institution. appropriate placed to be 41-612, provisions pursuant committed commitment, rights define the duration of does 41- by Ark. Stat. Ann. § governed release are application for may discharge Application for release be days than date of com- from presented sooner may mitment, subsequent discharge for applications year disposition from expiration after the of one made Therefore, neither nor 41- application. previous may held in time a limit upon sets place of these statutes decisional hospital. state Both instituting hands of the court the commitment. process in the have been point proceedings, statutes To this followed. constitutionality
The is not commitment statute however, it it argued it challenged; unconstitutional appellant. For this reason was applied proper prior chancellor to consider the court order. sanity pre-
The to determine motion to the trial court. motion seemed to sented on his behalf appellant’s capacity to stand trial. request determination of court, upon the with evidence acting motion condition, guilty found him not reason mental appellant’s at the time the offense. of lack of mental to Ark. him and ordered commitment acquitted *5 41-612. Appellant argues vigorously that Stat. Ann. §41- 1977) (2) (d) the state requires director of against a proceedings to institute civil commitment if he a proceed presents danger who is unfit to to trial party person argues also property himself or the or others. He year. cannot exceed a one period such commitment This who held on a being statute concerns accused is case, pending charge proceed.” but “unfit to In the present is appellant longer being no There is held such status. are charges pending against no criminal nor any against can there criminal him charges brought ever be Therefore, particular for this offense. in- this statute would be applicable. original His commitment with compliance statute, year there is a one limitation after accused must pursuant be committed to Ark. Stat. § 59- 1971) 408 (Repl. if it is he a danger found is to himself or person property of others.
It is true the petitioner-appellant being deprived is liberty, but this any confinement not result of crimnal proceeding. His detention ais result of condition. his mental
Since there asre no criminal proceedings pending against it appellant, logical pursuant held civil commitment provided (now in Ark. Stat. An. § 59-408 Acts of No. as mandated Ark. Stat. Ann. § (2) (d) in case he being is still held for trail after one year represents a but to himself or the person prop- erty Certainly, it others. cannot be argued accused is entitled to absolutely released as long presents as he danger to himself or the or property of others.
We hold that when the court terminated all proceedings against the appellant its order of he was long- subject er of any sanctions criminal statute. He has effectively been removed category from the “unfit proceed.” His status as if he had charged never been the crime upon which those proceedings were instituted. Therefore, confinement, after acquittal, should have been ordered to Ark. Stat. Ann. trial court 59-408. simply employed the wrong statute to do what had the right to do under another statute. We do interpret Baird v. State, (1979), 266 Ark. S.W. 2d 60 to contradict our committed, Baird present holding. argued that she should be *6 her committed. and we the trial court to have directed used, However, would be specify we did which statute committed, all, civil if at presume and we she was in exactly pre- we are doing commitment which is what sent case. 41-603,
We do not find that Ark. Stat. Ann. which trial, conviction, sentencing a precludes person or of who lacks understand the or in proceedings assist his defense, with Ark. Ann. conflicts Stat. which § 41-609 specifically a provides judgment per- for of of such Missouri, v. Drope son. It is understanding our U.S. (1975), that person held a could not such case; therefore, tried. There no trial in the present Drope inapplicable. is in- following Commentary (1972), Indiana, 406 U.S. in holding
dicates Jackson held confinement may not be a person the effect that tois com- incompetency year on of one a excess period for in- Commentary proceeding. in a criminal mitment a not incarcerate the state should felt the Commission dicates aof convicted for or tried never been who has person, Com- year. one of excess offense, period a for criminal periods should longer that confinement felt mission logic. is think this sound We civil commitment. traditional 41-612 a Ark. Stat. Ann. necessarily read into We must in- held being from prevents person limitation law. process due he deprived extent definitely to the civil involuntary commitment relating law The present seq. et Ark. Stat.
Therefore, the case is remanded to the Pulaski Court with directions to order the director of the state hospital, representative, or his to make a determination whether the appellant presently presents danger to himself property or If the others. director or his representative petitioner finds the presents danger, such will immediately institute civil commitment If it proceedings. that the appellant present found does not others, himself or the person property the director will
31/ will release findings trial court notify custody. from petitioner *7 remanded. and
Reversed in part, JJ., concur and J., and Hickman C Stroud, Fogleman, in part. dissent in concurring part, Justice, Chief A. Fogleman, John in reached with the result agree partially I part. in
dissenting means of with its agree I cannot opinion, but majority of the case. disposition the result or its reaching friend, complains that Stover, his next by Appellant committing County Franklin Circuit of Court order jurisdic- beyond Hospital was him to the Arkansas State If this is is, therefore, its face. invalid on of that court tion in court true, remedy, corpus proper was the habeas grant jurisdiction made had was application which the in facility charge of against officers of state relief in which held. County Stover is Pulaski an legal, not corpus, generally speaking, is Habeas 461, remedy. Corpus, equitable § Habeas 3. 39 CJS however, connection equity, may be utilized jurisdiction of in authority persons over supervisory with its general not has disability to extent been legal dividuals 51; 884, Equity, 27 probate § courts. transferred to 30 CJS 592, return properly The writ was Equity, Am. 2d § 69.1 Jur. county in County, the Pulaski ed to the Court of Public custody. Dept. held in State was Stover Welfare 1015, 2d Lipe, Ark. S.W. 526. 521 response of the appellee to the writ that was Stover was lawfully committed pursuant to Ark. Stat. Ann. 41-612 § 1977) (Repl. 12, on December that, It by was asserted 1979- order, Stover was acquitted charge murder, which had been pending when Stover was committed state hopital for 21, 1977, observation on December and for diagnosis, treatment and custody July on The Com- 1978. missioner Mental Health Services contends that Stover’s appear probate
1It corpus jurisdiction. does not that have courts habeas only remedy petition under Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-613 (Repl. chancery that court held the order of ac- quittal that proper, constitutionality was of Ark. Stat. (Repl. 1977) had raised and been that no 41-609 reason order of release of Stover under Ark. Stat. Ann. 1962) had been shown to exist. The chancery process was error. Even if the committing form, Stover in proper there was reason for the court to grant him, relief if process was issued under cir- cumstances not authorized law. v. Rogers, Rowland S.W. 2d 246. Appellant contends the trial had power un- der acquit It him. seems there *8 had been full with compliance requirements the of Ark. Stat. Ann. 1977). and 41-606 (Repl. reports §§ 41-605 The re- quired by (Repl. Stat. 41-607 were § and the circuit court found that Stover was unfit proceed, to him, but did not it might release have done had it found that he did present a danger to himself or others. Ark. (2) (c) Stat. Ann. 1977). (Repl. § 41-607 The when the circuit problem presented here arose court the judgment ground entered a of under on § 41-609 defect, having of Stover’s mental disease or been satisfied that, at the time the the charge against of conduct on which based, him was he lacked his to to conform conduct law requirements appreciate criminality of or to of Thereafter, the conduct. court Stover to committed (1) (a). Ark. Stat. Ann. 41-612 nothing There is § one, properly indicates that it is to applicable such as Stover, proceed. who lacks fitness to circuit court’s jurisdiction proceed as to who lacks set one fitness to out 1977). Ark. Stat. Ann. 41-607 § At the time appellant of order of which now com- plains, the it report court had before filed under 41-607 (2) (a). The report indicated that Stover was not fit to proceed. jurisdiction, had court upon finding that Stover was unfit proceed, to either upon release Stover conditions prescribed in its order order the Director of the State Hospital under proceed Ark. § only resumed could be proceeding The criminal ac- (3). even of judgment, No set out conditions of presumption without a entered quittal, could be proceedings. criminal the Circuit Court that the order of agree
I it was him void County acquitting because of Franklin cir jurisdiction of beyond the of that court. jursidiction very limited. mentally incompetent persons cuit courts over jurisdiction persons The Constitution of Arkansas vests mind in the Art. probate unsound jurisdiction 24. Consequently, Amendment exercise mentally must incident to incompetent person over Baker 121 Ark. Young, criminal jurisdiction. exercise of case, another 182 S.W. In that court had before 279. statute, which, face, required superitendent on its admit, judge asylum upon state insane the certificate of any person the charge pending, of the court whom was before insanity and to acquitted charge upon plea of a criminal person until he was restored to reason. This hold such court, held, circuit jurisdiction the limited because of ad that the circuit certificate a means for judge’s was asylum and not an ad acquitted person mission of the insanity, merely prima facie evidence judication of ad which the could held until there was an upon accused court, exclusive judication by probate having the court *9 time. It jurisdiction, may any be invoked at was said enactment when questioned that the statute then was a valid light. viewed in that We must also view the current statute otherwise, Baker, it light; the is unconstitutional. like same case, corpus by was a review the denial this of habeas County. that the Court of Pulaski This court said remedy probate petitioner’s proper apply was to to sanity. an adjudication question for of his and cannot The circuit court’s order this case is not be by held if there are no authority appellee, for Stover to be acquittal against him. If is proceedings pending criminal valid, period for such he can held state be by the adjudication probate may required time to invalid, court could then circuit acquittal court. If is probate appellee apply directed to to only have 320 1971).
commitment under Ark. Stat. Ann. § 59-408 (d). (2) See 41-607 majority explain has bothered to the difference Baker, probably because there is none.
between case is, properly If Baker there should be demonstrated. cannot ignored. certainly It sound under constitution. our Even if proper result reached under recognized, could be its if had holding, says valid. The majority been deprived liberty Stover is not of his as the result of a proceeding. criminal circuit How else could the court have possibly committed him?
It has suggested been through his next friend, is in position complain acquittal, of his however be, to him the consequences may adverse ultimate because attorney his that the premise moved order be made. A basic of unfitness proceed defendant’s under- stand proceedings him and against effectively to assist his Ark. own defense.
The test was most thoroughly stated in Dusby v. United States, 402, 788, U.S. 80 S. Ct. 4 L. (1960). 362 Ed. 2d 824 Ac case, to that cording the “test must be whether he has suf present ficient ability consult his lawyer with a — degree reasonable of rational understanding and whether he has rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.” We applied that test in Deason v. State, 56, 79, S.W. 263 562 2d cert. 839, den. U.S. S. Ct. L. Ed. 2d question essentially 136. jurisdictional Rogers State, one. 264 Ark. S.W. 2d 268.
Appellant is not barred questioning from the court’s ac- him, tion in “acquitting” if that him, action is detrimental to unless it can be said that he has either waived the right through attorney’s action is estopped it. But neither waiver nor estoppel should be if applied Stover did *10 not have a rational and factual understanding of proceedings or the ability to consult attorney with his in a meaningful manner. disposition majority’s of this agree
I cannot with any to make determina- province appellee It not the case. society. That whether is a to himself tion Stover by of Franklin finding only can be made Circuit Court instance, County, made. That in the first has been until the finding holding probate of Stover authorizes my appellee court makes a In opinion, determination. should apply days within to the circuit court for authorization to proceed proceed- and hold Stover until such § 59-408 concluded, can ings by or Stover released should be having jurisdiction. Justice, F. concurring part, dissenting Stroud, John in part. agree I portion that majority opinion held the circuit authority court did have acquit appellant even though was at that time incompetent to stand trial. Ark. Stat. 1977) Ann. (Repl. the acquit- authorizes tal an accused without a trial if the court feels the psy- chiatric report sufficiently indicates the accused lacked the capacity at the time the alleged offense to conform his con- duct requirements to the of law or to appreciate criminali- ty of his conduct. I find no conflict between provision Ark. Stat. 1977) (Repl. prohibits trial, § 41-603 conviction, or sentence long so an capaci- accused lacks the ty to understand the proceedings against him or to assist effectively in own defense. The part two statutes are of the same act and were adopted simultaneously. In such in- stances, always we try to effect give to both statutes rather than to Furthermore, declare one void. without a trial, trial is simply not conviction sentence. majority acquittal, that after opinion acknowledges County Franklin by the properly committed
Circuit Hospital pursuant Court to the Arkansas State Ark. Stat. Ann. (Repl. and that his release is 1977). governed depart Ark. Stat. Ann. I § 41-613 majority they when depart provisions from from the requirement it” a “reading process into due requires a civil commitment to Ark. 59-1401, seq et The trial court found that the
constitutionality committing had not been statute It challenged. my declaring that in the it' belief absence of *11 follow- unconstitutional, provisions should be chancery direc- to the remanding than ed. Rather commitment, I would affirm civil possible involving tions the writ of habeas cor- denying the chancellor action however, should, prejudice be without Such affirmance pus. petition his next friend to appellant mother to deter- County pursuant to § Franklin Circuit Court he himself or to presents mine if still danger, If present he still does such property others. Hospital. Sufficient remain the Arkansas State should 41-613(2) process” “due afforded committing court so petitions unlimited authorizes year than one long petitions as such are no sooner previous application. following disposition opinion. J., joins Hickman, THRASHER, Earl L. HYATT Charles a/k/a James v. STATE of Arkansas 604 S.W. 2d CR 80-70 Supreme Court Arkansas Opinion September delivered