Opinion
No. 2-892 / 02-0048.
Filed February 28, 2003.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marion County, William H. Joy, Judge.
Defendant appeals from the judgment and sentence entered upon his convictions for burglary in the first degree, theft in the first degree, and willful injury. AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and Theresa Wilson, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Cristen Odell, Assistant Attorney General, and Terry Rachels, County Attorney, for appellee.
Heard by Vogel, P.J., and Zimmer and Hecht, JJ.
James Hahn, Jr. appeals following his convictions of burglary in the first degree in violation of Iowa Code sections 713.1 and 713.3 (2001), theft in the first degree in violation of sections 714.1(1) and 714.2(1), and willful injury in violation of section 708.4(2). He maintains the evidence was insufficient to convict him of the burglary charge and asserts the trial court erred in failing to conduct a competency hearing. He also claims trial counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue a competency evaluation. We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
On June 25, 2001, seventy-two year old Stanley Mulder was driving his pickup truck to his home in Otley after a trip out of town. Shortly before noon, Mulder observed Hahn on the opposite side of the road. The defendant was walking in the same direction Mulder was driving. Because it was extremely hot that day, Mulder stopped his pickup truck intending to give Hahn a ride. Hahn ran across the road to Mulder's truck and climbed in the passenger seat without being invited. As Mulder pulled away, he inquired as to Hahn's destination but Hahn was unresponsive.
Shortly after he entered Mulder's vehicle, Hahn hit Mulder on the head and ordered him to, "get out." Hahn struck Mulder two or three more times before opening the driver's side door and pushing Mulder out the door. Still strapped to the truck by his seatbelt, Mulder hung outside the driver's side door while the truck accelerated out of control fishtailing into the ditch. Mulder's head struck the pavement causing wounds requiring fifty-five stitches to close. He also suffered cracked ribs. Gravel is still imbedded in his forehead from the ordeal.
Passerby Ken Wieland witnessed the incident and stopped to help Mulder. Weiland parked his pickup and approached the injured Mulder. Meanwhile, Hahn stood in the roadway attempting to flag down traffic. After unsuccessfully attempting to enter someone else's vehicle, Hahn entered Wieland's truck without permission and drove off. The defendant was eventually arrested after being pursued by police.
A trial information was filed on August 9, 2001 charging Hahn with burglary in the first degree, theft in the first degree, willful injury, and driving while revoked. On September 21, 2001, defense counsel filed an application for a competency evaluation of defendant at State expense which the trial court granted. The court also granted defendant's motion in limine, which sought to exclude evidence of Hahn's prior bad acts, prior criminal convictions, or uncooperative behavior while incarcerated. On October 24, 2001, Hahn and his counsel informed the court that Hahn no longer wanted to pursue the competency evaluation.
Prior to trial, the State dismissed the charge of driving while revoked. Jury trial commenced on October 30, 2001. The jury returned verdicts of guilty as charged on the three remaining charges. At sentencing, the court merged the burglary charge with the willful injury charge. Hahn was sentenced to an indeterminate term not to exceed twenty-five years on the burglary charge and an indeterminate term not to exceed ten years on the theft charge. The court ordered the sentences to run consecutively. Hahn appeals.
II. Merits.
Defendant raises three issues in this appeal. He contends the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilty for the offense of burglary in the first degree. He also asserts the trial court erred in not holding a hearing to determine Hahn's competency. In the event we conclude he has failed to preserve error on that issue, he alternatively raises the issue via an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
A. Sufficiency of the Evidence.
The trial court gave the jury the following instruction in regards to the charge of burglary in the first degree.
The State must prove all of the following elements of Burglary In The First Degree, as charged in Count I:
1. On or about the 25th day of June, 2001, the defendant entered a vehicle. "Entered" is defined in the preceding instruction.
2. The vehicle was an occupied structure as defined in the preceding instruction.
3. Persons were present in the occupied structure.
4. The defendant did not have permission or authority to enter the vehicle.
5. The defendant did so with the specific intent to commit an assault. "Specific intent" and "Assault" are defined in the preceding instruction.
6. During the burglary, he intentionally inflicted bodily injury on Stanley Mulder. "Bodily injury" is defined in the preceding instruction.
Hahn's argument centers on the fourth element. He maintains the record contains insufficient evidence to establish the absence of permission or authority to enter Mulder's pickup truck.
We review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence for errors at law. State v. Rohm, 609 N.W.2d 504, 509 (Iowa 2000) (citing State v. Pace, 602 N.W.2d 764, 768 (Iowa 1999)). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we uphold a finding of guilt if substantial evidence supports the verdict. Id. Substantial evidence is evidence from which a rational jury could find a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. We consider not only evidence which supports the verdict, but all reasonable inferences which could be derived from the evidence. Id.
We agree with the defendant that the record reveals Mulder stopped his pickup intending to give Hahn a ride. However, after Hahn ran across the road and Mulder got a closer look at him, Mulder became concerned. He testified he "probably would have" locked the doors to his truck if they had electric locks. Mulder did not invite the defendant to get into the truck and Hahn entered the truck without asking permission. Hahn's purpose in entering the truck is clear from his actions. Moments after he entered Mulder's vehicle, Hahn viciously assaulted Mulder and tried to push him out of the moving pickup. We conclude there was substantial evidence Hahn entered Mulder's pickup without permission or authority.
B. Competency Hearing.
Hahn contends the trial court denied him due process by failing to hold a competency hearing. Early in the case, defense counsel requested a competency evaluation at State expense to determine whether Hahn suffered from a mental disorder. The court granted the application for the competency evaluation and appointed Dr. John C. Garfield to conduct it. At the pretrial conference, both defendant and his counsel informed the court that defendant no longer wanted to pursue the evaluation. As a result, no hearing was held.
The criminal trial of an incompetent defendant violates due process. Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348, 354, 116 S.Ct. 1373, 1376, 134 L.Ed.2d 498, 506 (1996). Iowa Code section 812.3 requires that a hearing on a defendant's competency be held if "at any stage of a criminal proceeding it reasonably appears that the defendant is suffering from a mental disorder which prevents the defendant from appreciating the charge, understanding the proceedings, or assisting effectively in the defense, . . . ." We review the record de novo where no competency hearing is held below. See State v. Rieflin, 558 N.W.2d 149, 152 (Iowa 1996).
A defendant is presumed competent to stand trial and bears the burden to prove otherwise. State v. Mann, 512 N.W.2d 528, 531 (Iowa 1994). The standard of review is "whether a reasonable judge, situated as was the trial court judge whose failure to conduct an evidentiary hearing is being reviewed, should have experienced doubt with respect to competency. . . ." Id. (quoting Griffin v. Lockhart, 935 F.2d 926, 930 (8th Cir. 1991)). The relevant factors in determining whether a competency hearing should be held include: (1) defendant's irrational behavior, (2) demeanor suggesting a competency problem, and (3) prior medical opinion on the defendant's competency to stand trial. Rieflin, 558 N.W.2d at 152.
On appeal, Hahn offers several examples of behavior which he contends should have given the trial court doubt regarding his competency. He cites the violent nature of his crime, his fights with jailers and cellmates, his generally uncooperative demeanor, a disrespectful comment to the trial court, and his decision to wear jail clothing during trial. He also notes that trial counsel filed an application for a competency evaluation stating counsel had concerns about the defendant's mental state. Finally, he points out that the author of the presentence investigation report prepared following his conviction suggested that he receive mental health treatment while in prison.
Upon our de novo review of the record, we conclude the trial court did not err in failing to hold a competency hearing. Hahn was present at the pretrial hearing when his counsel withdrew his application for a competency evaluation. Nothing about defendant's conduct at the hearing suggests he failed to understand the proceedings or was unable to assist counsel with his defense. Similarly, Hahn responded coherently to the trial court's inquiries about his decision to wear jail clothing. We agree Hahn displayed an uncooperative and, at times, belligerent attitude toward the proceedings; however, the record reveals Hahn was capable of controlling his anger when he needed to. The trial court cautioned Hahn about disrupting the trial at a pretrial hearing. During the trial, Hahn complied with the court's admonition and behaved himself. He demonstrated no irrational or bizarre behavior indicating his incompetence. It can reasonably be argued that Hahn's escape attempt prior to trial reflected his understanding of the serious charges he faced and his desire to avoid prosecution. The record reveals the defendant has a long criminal history extending back to adolescence, but has never been declared incompetent to stand trial. The trial court had ample opportunity to observe Hahn prior to and during trial. We conclude a reasonable judge could have determined that it did not reasonably appear that Hahn was suffering from a mental disorder which prevented him from appreciating the charges against him, understanding the proceedings, or assisting effectively in his defense. Accordingly, we reject this assignment of error.
We further find that trial counsel did not breach any duty to the defendant by failing to pursue the competency issue. Counsel is not ineffective for failing to pursue a meritless issue. State v. Westeen, 591 N.W.2d 203, 207 (Iowa 1999).
III. Conclusion.
Our review of the record reveals substantial evidence to support the district court's entry of judgment for the offense of burglary in the first degree. We also conclude defendant's due process rights were not violated by the trial court's failure to hold a hearing on the issue of his competence to stand trial. Finally, we conclude Hahn was not denied ineffective assistance of counsel.