NOTICE
 

The text of this opinion can be corrected before the opinion is published in the 

Pacific Reporter. Readers are encouraged to bring typographical or other formal 

errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts: 

303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501
 

Fax: (907) 264-0878
 

E-mail: corrections @ akcourts.us
 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF ALASKA 

WILLIAM I. BUXTON, 

Appellant, 

v. 

STATE OF ALASKA, 

Appellee. 

Court of Appeals No. A-11778 

Trial Court No. 1KE-12-762 CR 

O P I N I O N 

No. 2457 — June 19, 2015 

Appeal from the Superior Court, First Judicial District, 

Ketchikan, Trevor N. Stephens, Judge. 

Appearances: Renee McFarland, Assistant Public Defender, and 

Quinlan Steiner, Public Defender, Anchorage, for the Appellant. 

Eric A. Ringsmuth, Assistant Attorney General, Office of 

Criminal Appeals, Anchorage, and Craig W. Richards, Attorney 

General, Juneau, for the Appellee. 

Before: Mannheimer, Chief Judge, and Allard and Kossler, 

Judges. 

Judge ALLARD. 

The question before this Court is whether a criminal appeal should be 

stayed if the defendant becomes mentally incompetent during the pendency of the appeal. 

For the reasons explained here, we conclude that the appeal should not be stayed. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Factual background and prior proceedings 

A jury convicted William Buxton of first-degree murder for the death of his 

aunt at their shared home in Metlakatla. At sentencing, a psychiatrist who evaluated 

Buxton testified that he had been diagnosed with schizophrenia. 

Buxton appealed his conviction to this Court and his case is currently in the 

initial briefing stages. Based on her concerns that Buxton is no longer mentally 

competent, Buxton’s attorney has filed a motion to stay his appeal and to remand the case 

to the superior court for a competency determination. The State opposes any stay of the 

appeal and argues that a competency determination is unnecessary because it is 

ultimately the attorney, not the defendant, who makes the final decision regarding which 

issues to brief.1 

Analysis 

We conclude that the proper approach to this issue is the one developed in 

the American Bar Association’s ABA Criminal Justice Mental Health Standards.

2 This 

is also the approach followed by the majority of courts that have directly addressed this 

issue.3 

1 See Coffman v. State,172 P.3d 804, 807-08 (Alaska App. 2007). 

2 See ABA Criminal Justice Mental Health Standards § 7-5.4(b) (1989). 

3 See People v. Newton, 394 N.W.2d 463, 466 (Mich. App. 1986) (holding that a 

defendant’s mental incompetence does not require a stay of appeal), vacated on other 

grounds by People v. Newton, 399 N.W.2d 28 (Mich. 1987); see also Fisher v. State, 845 

P.2d 1272, 1276-77 (Okla. Crim. App. 1992) (same); People v. Kelly, 822 P.2d 285, 413-14 

(Cal. 1992) (same); State v. White, 815 P.2d 869, 878 (Ariz. 1991) (same), abrogated on 

other grounds by State v. Salazar, 844 P.2d 566, 584 (Ariz. 1992); but see Commonwealth 

v. Silo, 364 A.2d 893, 895 (Pa. 1976) (“[I]t would be improper for us to proceed with the 

instant appeal if in fact appellant was not competent to	 consult with counsel in its 

(continued...) 

– 2 –	 2457
 
 

 

 

 

 

3 

Criminal Justice Mental Health Standard § 7-5.4 (“Mental incompetence 

at time of noncapital appeal”) addresses the situation we are confronted with here — 

where a defendant who is represented by counsel becomes incompetent during the 

pendency of the appeal. (We express no opinion regarding what standard should apply 

when the defendant is proceeding pro se or when the defendant is incompetent prior to 

the initial filing of the appeal, as those situations are not before us.) 

Under the ABA Standard, if a good faith doubt about the mental 

competence of a defendant arises during the time of appeal, counsel is advised to “make 

such doubt known to the court and to include it in the record.” 4 Mental incompetence, 

in this instance, means that a defendant “does not have sufficient present ability to 

consult with [his or her] lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding, or 

... does not have a rational as well as factual understanding appropriate to the nature of 

the proceedings.”5 

However, the mental incompetence of the defendant does not preclude 

continuation of the appeal “as to matters deemed by counsel or by the court to be 

appropriate.” 6 Instead, the defense counsel is required to proceed with the appeal on 

behalf of the defendant and raise “all issues deemed by counsel to be appropriate.”7 

(...continued) 

preparation.”). 

4 ABA Criminal Justice Mental Health Standards § 7-5.4(b)(i) (1989). 

5 ABA Criminal Justice Mental Health Standards § 7-5.4(a) (1989). 

6 ABA Criminal Justice Mental Health Standards § 7-5.4(b) (1989). 

7 ABA Criminal Justice Mental Health Standards § 7-5.4(b)(ii) (1989). 

– 3 – 2457
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

The accompanying commentary to the ABA standard explains that this 

approach is based on three different assumptions: First, that criminal defendants 

“generally wish ... to go forward expeditiously” with their appeals presumably because 

their interests are also best served by timely resolution of their appeal, which might 

overturn their conviction or modify their sentence.8 Second, that although criminal 

defendants must make the decision of whether to appeal, they are otherwise required to 

rely on their counsel’s strategic and tactical decisions as to what claims to raise on appeal 

and how those claims should be briefed. 9 And, lastly, that a defendant’s incompetence 

“rarely affects the fairness or accuracy of appellate decisions” because defendants 

generally do not actively participate in appellate proceedings.10 

The commentary also recognizes, however, that “it is theoretically possible 

that an appellant’s mental incompetence might prevent counsel from acquiring 

information or learning of a client’s concerns important to a proper disposition of an 

appeal.”11 For these reasons, subsection (c) of Standard § 7-5.4 provides that: 

Mental incompetence of the defendant during the time of 

appeal shall be considered adequate cause, upon a showing 

of prejudice, to permit the defendant to raise, in a later appeal 

or action for postconviction relief, any matter not raised on 

the initial appeal because of the defendant’s incompetence.12 

Thus, under this approach, which we adopt here, the direct appeal of a 

defendant suspected of being mentally incompetent moves forward to completion despite 

8 Commentary to ABA Criminal Justice Mental Health Standards § 7-5.4 (1989). 

9 See Id. 

10 Commentary Introduction to ABA Criminal Justice Mental Health Standards § 7-5.4 

(1989). 

11 Commentary to ABA Criminal Justice Mental Health Standards § 7-5.4 (1989). 

12 ABA Criminal Justice Mental Health Standards § 7-5.4(1989) 

– 4 – 2457
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the suspected incompetency. But if the defendant can later show that he was prejudiced 

by his appeal moving forward despite his mental incompetency, he will be able to obtain 

appropriate relief through subsequent post-conviction proceedings. 

We acknowledge that requiring defense attorneys to proceed with the 

criminal appeal of a mentally incompetent defendant can raise ethical concerns for those 

attorneys.13 We also acknowledge that defendants can contribute to the shaping of their 

attorneys’ appellate presentations, and they can sometimes independently identify issues 

that should be raised on appeal. Moreover, we agree that there is a public interest in 

having defendants participate in the appellate process so that they may be in a position 

to understand the claims made on their behalf, and the appellate court’s resolution of 

those claims. 

Nevertheless, we conclude that the ABA Standard offers the best approach 

to this problem by ensuring timely resolution of pending appeals while still preserving 

procedural fairness for mentally incompetent defendants. 

Conclusion 

The motion for a remand to the superior court for a competency 

determination and to stay this appeal until the defendant is restored to competency is 

DENIED. 

13 See, e.g., Alaska R. Prof. Conduct 1.4 (duty to communicate with client); see also 

Alaska R. Prof. Conduct 1.14 (duty to client with impaired capacity). 

– 5 – 2457