IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY

STATE OF DELAWARE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. ) Cr. ID. No. 1312012652

)

)

FRANK T. CARTER

, )

)

Defendant. )

Submitted: October 20, 2015

Decided: October 27 , 2015

(Corrected October 29, 2015)

COMMISSIONER’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON

DEFENDANT’S COMPETENCY TO STAND TRIAL AND

MOTION TO DISMISS

Kelly Breen , Esquire, Delaware Department of Justice

, 820 N. French St. 7 th Floor,

Wilmington, Delaware, 19801, Attorney for the State.

Beth D. Savitz, Esquire, Office of the Public Defender , 820 N. French St. 3 rd Floor,

Wilmington, Delaware, 19801, Attorney for Defendant.

MANNING

, Commissioner1 This 27th day of October 2015, upon consideration of defendant Frank T. Carter’s

motion to determine competency and motion to dismiss, it appears that:

(1) Mr. Carter was arrested on December 20, 2013 in the above captioned case.

He was indicted on March 17, 2014

, for two counts of Robbery 2 nd Degree and one count

of Felony Theft.

(2) Mr. Carter has been held in default of bail since the date of his arrest and is

currently held at the Delaware Psychiatric Center in the Mitchell building.

(3) On July 18, 2015, a Neuropsycholog ical Assessment for Competency r eport

was filed by Mr. Carter ’s counsel. This report was completed by Abraham Mensch,

Ph.D. In this extensive 24 page report, Dr. Mensch detailed Mr. Carter’s considerable

history of mental illness, includin g his birth trauma and life

- long limited cognitive

functioning. Dr. Mensch also administered a battery of neuropsychological tests.

Ultimately, Dr. Mensch opined that Mr. Carter was not competent to waive his Miranda

rights, enter a guilty plea or stand trial. Dr. Mensch also opined that Mr. Carter’s deficits

“are significant and cognitive in nature, and therefore are very unlikely to improve with

competency restoration training.” Dr. Mensch’s report was filed wi th the Court as Docket

Item #12.

(4 ) On July 31, 2015, Mr. Carter was evaluated for competency to stand trial by

Douglas Schultz, PsyD , with the Delaware Psychiatric Center . Dr. Schultz opined that

Mr. Carter was competent to stand trial based up on the results of the CAST*MR

— a

diagnostic tool to assess competency in defendants with intellectual limitation s . Dr.

Schultz’s report was filed with the Court on August 31, 2015, Docket Item # 20.2 (5 ) A competency hearing was scheduled before the Superior Court on October

20, 2015. The day prior to t he hearing the State submitted an updated report from Dr.

Schultz. In this report, Dr. Schultz opined that despite attempts at competency restoration

while at DPC, Mr. Carter was “not competent to stand trial at this time.”

(6) Additionally, records indi cate that Mr. Carter was previously found not

competent to stand trial while a juvenile in the F amily Court in 2011

.

(7) The State, by virtue of Dr. Schult’s October 19, 2015 letter, is not contesting

Mr. Carter’s lack of competency to stand trial. Howev er, the State, duri ng the October

19, 2015 hearing declined to enter a nolle p rosequi on Mr. Carter’s charges despite the

fact that the State does not contest Mr. Carter’s lack of competency. It is apparent to me

that the State does not want to bear the r esponsibility for dropping Mr. Carter’s case

—

des pite the State’s inability to restore his competency or ever br ing him to trial.

(8 ) The is no indication from either p arty that the State has, or ever will, see k to

civilly commit Mr. Carter pursuant to the provisions of 16 Del C . § 5001

- 50 26.

(9 ) Finally, p ending before the Court is Mr. Carter’s Motion to Dismiss his

indictment , filed on Sept ember 10, 2015. In this motion Mr. Carter argues that his

continued confinement

, without the prosp ect of a trial, is a violation of his rights to Due

Process, a Speedy Trial and amount s to Cruel an d Unusual Punishment. 1

1 The State did not file a response to Mr. Carter’s motion and “took no position” on the matter during the

hearing on October 19, 2015.3 (10 ) Based upon my r eview of the expert reports, the relevant case law cited by

Mr. Carter, I cannot disagree.

CONCLUSION

For all of the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss should be

GRANTED

.

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED

.

/s/ Bradley V. Manning

BRADLEY V. MANNING

, Commissioner

oc: Prothonotary

cc: Defendant