Opinion ID: 1577932
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Equitable Tolling During Ongoing Mental Incompetence

Text: The trial court also rejected Carneal's argument that his ongoing mental incompetence saved an otherwise untimely RCr 11.42 motion. This Court has recognized the doctrine of equitable tolling as applicable to post-conviction motions. Robertson v. Commonwealth, 177 S.W.3d 789, 792 (Ky.2005). While an ongoing mental incompetence may warrant equitable tolling, a claim of mental incompetence does not constitute a per se reason to toll a statute of limitations. Commonwealth v. Stacey, 177 S.W.3d 813, 817 (Ky.2005). Rather, the critical inquiry remains whether the circumstances preventing a petitioner from making a timely filing were both beyond the petitioner's control and unavoidable despite due diligence. Id. Carneal has not satisfied this burden. Dr. Cornell's report concerns Carneal's mental state at the time of the offense and the sentencing, with some analysis of his current mental condition. What reference is made to Carneal's mental condition during the intervening six years does not support a finding of ongoing mental incompetence. Carneal has been medicated since 1999, and all psychological reports indicate that the intensity of his mental disorder ebbs and flows, logically indicating at least temporary periods of mental competency. Reports filed at the 18-year-old hearing indicate Carneal's mental condition stabilized during his juvenile detention, that he was able to meaningfully participate in group therapy, and that he earned a high school diploma and GED. In adult corrections, Carneal has been treated with more effective medication and has earned credits towards an associate's degree. In his report, Dr. Cornell explains that schizophrenia is a severe mental illness that is characterized by episodes of psychosis followed [by] less severe periods when the patient may have residual symptoms or in some cases, relatively normal functioning. As is consistent with the disorder, Carneal has experienced temporary periods of mental incompetence since the time of the offense, but has not been totally incompetent for the uninterrupted duration. He has been aware of his mental disability for many years and has actively sought treatment. In light of Carneal's intermittent competence, we are unconvinced that his condition prevented compliance with the RCr 11.42 time limitation such that equitable tolling would be appropriate. Further, because the evidence in the record refutes Carneal's claim of an ongoing mental incompetence, an evidentiary hearing on this issue was unnecessary. Stanford v. Commonwealth, 854 S.W.2d 742, 744 (Ky. 1993).