Opinion ID: 1287992
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: Sanders was arrested on April 17, 1994, shortly following an incident where, according to testimony presented at trial, he robbed Teresa Jessup at gunpoint on the parking lot of a Shoney's restaurant in South Charleston, West Virginia. Ms. Jessup left the restaurant at approximately 2:30 p.m., after finishing her morning waitressing shift, and walked to a nearby car. After she was seated in the vehicle, an African-American male in dark clothing with a hood over his face opened the car door and, while holding a gun, demanded money. A shoving contest ensued, with Ms. Jessup refusing to remain seated and the masked robber attempting to force her to stay in the car. When she finally reached a standing position, the robber put the gun to Ms. Jessup's head and again demanded all of her money, stating: Give me your money. Now. I mean it. While Ms. Jessup initially indicated that she had no money, the robber's nervousness and statement, I know you have money because you just got off from work, eventually persuaded her to produced several one dollar bills. Ms. Jessup was never able to see the assailant's face. The robber fled the Shoney's parking lot on foot. A retired firefighter, John Clark, was driving his pickup a short distance from the site of the robbery when he heard a police bulletin regarding the incident over his scanner radio. Approximately one and one-half blocks away from the restaurant, he spotted a man fitting the description of Ms. Jessup's robber in an alleyway, heading toward a nearby set of railroad tracks. According to Mr. Clark, the man was acting suspicious, in that he was looking around quite a bit. Mr. Clark drove to the Shoney's and told police about his observations. Another motorist, Lena Steele, who was driving on nearby Interstate 64, likewise heard a bulletin on her scanner radio which gave a description of the assailant and indicated that he was last seen near the railroad tracks that lay directly beneath the highway. After spotting an individual walking along I-64 that matched the description of the man wanted by police, Ms. Steele contacted authorities using her cellular phone. Upon obtaining this information, Patrolman Larry Thomas of the South Charleston Police Department drove onto I-64 and pulled in behind a man walking beside the roadway, whom he later identified at trial as Sanders. Sanders immediately fled down the highway and then up an adjacent hillside, but halted after Patrolman Thomas drew his pistol and ordered him to stop. Sanders was found in possession of a dark sweatshirt with eye and nose holes cut out of the hood, a .22 caliber semi-automatic pistol, and several one dollar bills. Sanders was indicted for robbery by the Kanawha County Grand Jury on June 30, 1994. Shortly prior to that date, Sanders' appointed counsel on June 2, 1994 moved for a mental status examination pursuant to W. Va.Code § 27-6A-1(a) (1983), indicating to the trial court that defendant was delusional and unable to assist counsel. The defense motion was granted, and Sanders was subsequently examined on October 12 by Dr. Ralph Smith, M.D., a psychiatrist, and Dr. Rosemary Smith, Psy. D., a psychologist. In a report detailing their findings, these mental health professionals indicated that Sanders was acting in a psychotic manner, as evidenced in part by delusional thinking regarding his involvement in a military mission to protect a Charleston chemical plant from Russian attack. The doctors further noted, however, that several tests raise[d] a great suspicion of malingering as a sole explanation for his behavior. As a consequence, the report stated that because of the conflicting evidence at hand, no conclusive determination could be made concerning Sanders' competency to stand trial. Accordingly, it was recommended that Sanders be placed in a state mental facility for further observation. In response to these findings, the circuit court under authority of W. Va.Code § 27-6A-1(b) ordered that Sanders be admitted to the Forensic Unit of the South Central Regional Jail for a twenty-day observation period, which was later extended pursuant to a joint motion by the State and defense counsel. Clinical evaluation at the South Central Jail was completed in mid-December 1994, with the examining psychiatrist, Dr. Daniel Thistlewaite, M.D., and psychologist, Dr. David Clayman, Ph. D., both concluding that Sanders was incompetent to stand trial based upon bipolar disease and an effectively-based psychotic disorder. It was recommended that Sanders undergo protracted treatment with antipsychotic drugs. The circuit court subsequently determined without a hearing that Sanders was incompetent to stand trial, and, on February 1, 1995, committed him to Sharpe Hospital in Weston, West Virginia, for a six-month improvement period pursuant to W. Va.Code § 27-6A-2(b). An initial report from Sharpe Hospital dated July 12 by forensic psychologist Dr. Theodore A. Glance, Ph. D., indicated that Sanders continued to suffer from a psychotic disorder and remained incompetent to stand trial. Pursuant to Dr. Glance's recommendation, the circuit court ordered an additional three-month period of examination and treatment. By September 1995, the clinicians charged with Sanders' care reported substantial improvement in his mental condition. While continuing to diagnose Sanders as suffering from a psychotic disorder, Dr. Glance stated in his second report that [r]eports noted in the progress notes and from the treatment team, including the psychiatrist Dr. Thomas Adamski and the various treatment team members, suggests that Mr. Sanders has improved considerably since the July, 1995 evaluation. He has been aggressively treated with medications. While he does not actively participate in programming, he is compliant and realistic in his daily behaviors. He has not been reporting thoughts which the treatment team described as delusional. No psychotic activity such as hallucinations are noted in the file by any shift worker.... Malingering has been a consideration of all previous evaluators.... Malingering remains an opinion of a few of the treatment team members. Malingering is not considered as part of this diagnosis since no[ ] symptoms were presented other than lack of memory of the alleged crime. Based upon his finding that Sanders' psychotic disorder was being controlled by medication, Dr. Glance was of the opinion that he was able to assist counsel in mounting a defense at trial. The treating psychiatrist, Dr. Adamski, likewise concluded in a separate report that Sanders was fit to be returned for trial, and cautioned that [o]ne must consider that he is now a veteran of the Mental Health System and that he may well malinger persecutory delusions in order to remain in the hospital. Sanders was later returned to the South Central Jail to await trial. On December 14, 1995, the circuit court entered an agreed order authorizing Dr. Glance to enter the South Central Jail for purposes of interviewing and evaluating Sanders to determine whether he was criminally responsible for the charged offense. During a subsequent April 11, 1996 interview, Sanders became irate under questioning and threw a chair at Dr. Glance. [1] In a report issued immediately after the incident, Dr. Glance posited that the deterioration in the defendant's condition was likely caused by his refusal to comply with his medication needs. Dr. Glance further stated that Sanders' competency to stand trial is suspect, and suggested that the defendant once more undergo a mental-status evaluation to determine whether he remained competent to stand trial. Shortly thereafter, the circuit court again committed the defendant to Sharpe Hospital, where he remained until June 1997. Prior to Sanders' return to the regional jail, Dr. Glance issued a report on May 27, 1997, where he observed that the defendant's mental status was dramatically different from that observed during the April 11, 1996 chair-throwing incident. While Sanders was diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, the circuit court was informed that the condition was in remission, and that the still-existent schizoid personality disorder suffered by Sanders did not render him incompetent to stand trial. Dr. Glance, cautioned, however, that in the event Sanders' trial were not held promptly, it was likely that his condition would disintegrate to the point of incompetency. Upon his final return from Sharpe Hospital, Sanders was arraigned on July 7, 1997 and entered a plea of not guilty. At the same hearing, defense counsel requested and were granted leave to obtain further psychiatric and psychological evaluation for Sanders by experts of their choice. Sanders' counsel thereafter served notice under W. Va. R.Crim. P. 12.2(a) of the defendant's intent to rely upon an insanity defense at trial. On August 29, 1997, Sanders was examined by psychiatrist Dr. F. Joseph Whelan, M.D., who was chosen by defense counsel. Dr. Whelan, based upon his own observations as well as review of past reports, diagnosed Sanders as suffering from bipolar disorder, which he determined was in partial remission. He further indicated in a report dated December 1, 1997, that Sanders was not criminally responsible for the charged robbery, and was likewise incompetent to stand trial. Defense counsel also arranged for Sanders to undergo an examination by Mari Walker, M.S., a licensed psychologist. In a report dated November 19, 1997, Ms. Walker stated that Sanders appear[s] to this clinician to be suffering from psychological symptomatology which he denie[s]. She went on to state in her report: Mr. Sanders fulfills the diagnostic criteria (DSM-IV) for Bipolar Disorder, NOS. He is not considered competent to stand trial. He would have difficulty objectively processing information, maintaining attention or making judgments for his own best benefit..... Continued psychiatric treatment is very strongly recommended. At a December 1997 status hearing, the results of these most recent psychiatric and psychological evaluations were discussed, at which time defense counsel asserted that Sanders was incompetent to stand trial. After sparring between the State and defense counsel concerning whether Sanders should once more be sent to Sharpe Hospital for an improvement period, the trial court made clear that it would require a hearing [2] on the issue of defendant's mental competency prior to taking any further action in the case. At the conclusion of the status hearing, the court put the onus on defense counsel to promptly schedule a competency hearing for a time when it was convenient for their expert witnesses. While the defense initially indicated its intention to proceed with a competency hearing in January 1998, no immediate action was taken. Rather, on July 8, 1998 the circuit court endorsed an agreed order permitting Dr. Glance to once more interview and evaluate Sanders regarding his competency to stand trial. In his final report, based upon an interview conducted on July 10, 1998, Dr. Glance observed that Sanders did not evidence any psychotic symptoms such as loose associations, clanging, or neologisms. Echoing his earlier May 1997 report, Dr. Glance stated that Sanders' schizophrenia was in remission, in this instance without the use of medication, and that he was competent to stand trial. A competency hearing was finally held on August 19, 1998. The sole witness at this proceeding, Dr. Glance, was called by the State. Based upon his July 10 examination, Dr. Glance testified that in his opinion Sanders was competent to stand trial. In reaching this conclusion, Dr. Glance observed that Sanders was no longer under medication, suggesting that he no longer require[d] neuroplectic[] [drugs] to keep his mind free of psychotic thought. As to the sustainability of Sanders' competency, however, defense counsel elicited the following testimony on cross-examination: Q Doctor, ... if we were to schedule this trial ... within, let's say, the next month or so, based on your observations and your interview with my client ..., would my client's condition degenerate within the next month to such an extent that it perhaps renders the necessity of another competency hearing? A Mr. Sanders, as Ihe can get fired up and angry and irritated and I can'tit depends upon how angry and irritated he may get in the sense of how he is going to handle the anxiety. Based on history, I know Mr. Sanders in personal experience with me has not done well over time when left to stew, so to speak, over an impending or upcoming legal event. Q Would you suggest that this trial be held relatively expeditiously? A Forthwith, yes, I would. There is a risk of disintegration, yes. Defense counsel did not present any evidence on the issue of mental competency. One of Sanders' lawyers, Matthew Victor, stated during the hearing that [i]f I wanted to send Mr. Sanders back to Weston, [3] I would have had two witnesses that could have testified about his incompetence. I have chosen not to bring in these witnesses because I do believe that Mr. Sanders is competent at this point .... (Footnote added.) The circuit court, based in part upon Dr. Glance's unrebutted report and testimony, found Sanders competent to stand trial. Sanders' trial did not commence until December 7, 1998. Defense counsel had sought and obtained a continuance from an earlier October trial date in order to have Sanders evaluated on the issue of criminal responsibility. Sanders was examined by Drs. Ralph Smith and Rosemary Smith [4] on October 16, 1998; however, it proved impossible to make any determinations as to the defendant's criminal responsibility at the time of the offense, since he refused to cooperate with the examining physician and psychologist. A report prompted by this incident was received by the circuit court on November 17, 1998, and appeared to raise serious questions concerning Sanders' present capacity to assist in his defense: Mr. Sanders' diagnosis remains an enigma. His behavior at the time of the interview and his mother's report calls into question as to whether he has continued psychotic symptoms. By reports from the Sharpe Hospital and Forensic Unit at the South Central Regional Jail, Mr. Sanders did have psychosis that was evident in 1994, for which he was treated. However, he has been off medication over the last year and a half, has been uncooperative with his attorneys, was uncooperative with the psychiatric examination, seems peculiar to his mother, and may have symptoms that he is hiding. The record of Sanders' trial is replete with evidence of irrational and self-defeating behavior. At the very outset of proceedings, Sanders at one point refused to enter the courtroom until his leg shackles were removed. A deputy charged with his transport stated at that Sanders was rambling on about his innocence, and how the court had already found him guilty. Once seated in the courtroom, it became apparent that Sanders desired to appear before the jury in his jail-issue orange jumpsuit, notwithstanding urging by counsel and the court that he change into street clothes. Defense counsel also made it clear on the record that Sanders was refusing, against their advice, to permit the introduction of any evidence bearing upon his criminal responsibility. Also, it became apparent that Sanders was refusing to permit one of his lawyers, Matthew Victor, to actively participate in the trial. After the State completed its case-in-chief, the issue arose as to whether Sanders would testify on his own behalf. Defense counsel made the following statement: MR. HIVELY: Mr. Sanders at different times has told me he didn't want to testify; he does want to testify. As of last night, apparently he did not want to testify. Earlier, just this afternoon, he said he wants to testify. I told him that there would come a point when the Court would inquire as to his options; that the Court would instruct if he declined to testify, that they couldn't infer anything from that, but I feel at this point you have to inquire of Mr. Sanders. A colloquy ensued between the trial court and the defendant, where Sanders indicated his intent to testify. Defense counsel subsequently requested an opportunity to talk alone with Sanders, and, following a brief recess, counsel informed the court as follows: MR. HIVELY: Your Honor, during the recess Mr. Victor and I talked with Mr. Sanders about testifying, what he would testify. Basically, he refuses to tell us what he would testify to. In prior interviews, we had an understanding of what he would say if he was called upon. We just wanted to narrow and just go over his testimony. He refused to tell us and said he wasn't going to tell us what he was going to testify to. Also, I would like to place on the record that based upon his behavior today in the courtroom, it is against my advice that he testify. THE COURT: It's what? MR. HIVELY: It would be against my advice for him to testify. If he testifies, it will be against my advice. I think that in testifying as a witness, the conversation with me, getting angry and carrying on, that on the witness stand if he carries on as well, then the jury can draw a negative inference from that. Defense counsel requested a recess until the following day, but after Sanders insisted upon testifying [t]his evening, right now, the trial court reluctantly acceded to the defendant's request and permitted him to take the witness stand. In the course of direct examination by defense counsel, Sanders briefly and succinctly answered questions concerning his life history. When asked a question regarding his encounter with Ms. Jessup, however, the defendant proceeded to engage in a lengthy and largely incoherent monologue regarding the incident as well as his subsequent arrest. This was followed by Sanders refusing to answer several questions on grounds of self-incrimination: Q Why did you ask the woman, if you asked her, why did you ask her for money? A I plead the Fifth. Q That woman you asked for money, did you pull the gun on her? A No. Q But you asked for money because you just needed money, right? A That is not the case here. I want the lady that said I robbed her up there, not some othershe didn't even have glasses on. This is 1994. I'm sure if you've got a gun, you are going to wear your glasses. Q At some point, the officer stopped you, didn't he? A Yes. Q Did he recover a gun from you? A I plead the Fifth. Q You had a gun because somebody had robbed you before, right? A I plead the Fifth. Q And you used that for your protection? A I plead the Fifth. Q But on April 17th, you didn't rob anybody, did you? A I plead the Fifth. Robbery is not the point here.... Sanders likewise refused to answer the sole question posed on cross-examination, which asked if he was carrying a black hooded sweatshirt when arrested. At the close of evidence on the first day of trial, following the additional testimony of two character witnesses, one of Sanders' lawyers moved for a mistrial, stating that that the psychosis that he has suffered from `94 off and on, different doctors and evaluations, is still evident. [5] The trial court denied the motion, indicating only that it was for the same reasons I've already put on the record. The jury found Sanders guilty of robbery the following day after deliberating only 38 minutes, and answered an interrogatory concerning his use of a firearm in the affirmative. Sanders was subsequently sentenced to forty-years imprisonment pursuant to W. Va. Code § 61-2-12. A motion for a new trial predicated upon Sanders' purported lack of mental competency at the time of trial was later denied by the trial court, and this appeal followed.