State Of Washington, Respondent V. James O. Lester, Appellant

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Respondent,
v.
JAMES OTIS LESTER,
Appellant.
No. 70124-0-1
DIVISION ONE
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
FILED: April 21, 2014
Leach, J. — James Lester appeals his conviction for assault in the first
degree, claiming that he was incompetent to stand trial. 	Because Lester fails to
show that the trial court abused its discretion when it found him competent to
stand trial, we affirm.
Background
On February 9, 2011, the State charged Lester with assault in the first
degree. 	Before trial, defense counsel informed the court that he had reason to
believe Lester was not competent to stand trial "due to his declining cognitive
status." 	On 	January 	24, 	2012, 	the 	court ordered 	a 	pretrial 	competency
evaluation by Western State Hospital.
Dr. John 	Neer, 	a defense-retained 	neuropsychologist, 	and 	Dr. Joanna
Johnson, a Western State Hospital forensic psychologist, examined Lester. 	For
his evaluation, Dr. Neer interviewed Lester, administered a number of cognitive

No. 70124-0-1/2
tests, and reviewed medical records from 	Harborview Medical Center and Dr.
Johnson's 	report. 	Dr. 	Neer 	diagnosed 	Lester 	with 	cognitive 	disorder 	not
otherwise specified or dementia not otherwise specified. 	He testified that Lester
had difficulty remaining focused during their conversation and that Lester has an
IQ 	of 	68, 	which 	indicates 	mild 	mental 	retardation 	to 	borderline 	range 	of
functioning. 	But Dr. 	Neer also testified that 	Lester understood generally the
charge of murder and "the role of the different courtroom participants," that Lester
expressed faith and trust in his attorney, that Lester was able to talk about the
"the entire court process," and that he was able to "discuss a situation where the
police came, and he was confronted by the police, and he was arrested." 	In his
report, Dr. Neer stated,
It is believed that he would be unable to track information presented
by his attorney, process it in a meaningful manner, and have a
constructive exchange in conversation about his legal [sic]. 	It is
also 	believed 	that 	Mr. 	Lester 	would 	be 	unable 	to 	recall 	any
information that he had previously discussed with his attorney. 	His
decision-making process would likely be irrational, impulsive and
perhaps be based on information that is unassociated or loosely
related to his case. 	The deficits that are interfering with his ability
to assist counsel are believed to be secondary to dementia.
Based 	on 	neuropsychological 	assessment 	results, 	clinical
interviews, and collateral records, it is my opinion that Mr. Lester
does not have the capacity to assist his attorney in his own defense
due to his severe cognitive impairments.
Dr. Neer believed it was "fairly unlikely that he would improve to the level of
having a capacity to assist counsel."
For her evaluation, Dr. Johnson interviewed Lester and his attorney and
reviewed King County Correctional Facility records, Harborview Medical Center

No. 70124-0-1/3
records, 	information from 	defense counsel, information from 	the King County
Crisis and Commitment Services, discovery documents that the State provided,
the 	Mental 	Health 	Division 	Intranet Database, 	and 	a 	Washington Access to
Criminal History Report from the Washington State Patrol. 	Lester had no history
of psychiatric hospitalization or outpatient mental health treatment but had past
diagnoses of depression, seizure disorder, and alcohol abuse and dependence.
Dr. Johnson concluded in her report:
Mr. Lester presented with no signs or symptoms of psychosis and
although he exhibited mild memory impairment!,] in my opinion, his
competence is sufficient to proceed. 	Mr. Lester appreciates the
allegations 	against 	him, the 	seriousness of them, 	and 	possible
penalties. 	He 	further 	demonstrated 	sufficient 	understanding 	of
court 	procedures, 	legal 	strategies 	and 	the 	roles 	of 	courtroom
participants. 	Regarding 	any 	court 	related 	information 	that 	he
misunderstands or lacks knowledge of, Mr. Lester demonstrated
the 	capacity 	to 	learn 	new 	information 	and 	subsequently 	to
reasonably apply it to his legal case.
Mr. Lester reported that 	he 	has 	paperwork which 	identifies the
charges and other information related to his case. 	Memory aids
such as this is highly recommended; however there is a lack of data
to suggest that his memory is so impaired that he cannot assist
defense counsel. 	The jail records do not indicate any significant
memory or cognitive impairment. 	Indeed, Mr. Lester was able to
recall and relate information that he had discussed with his attorney
to jail staff, specifically his plea options.
Mr. Lester is capable of reasonably assessing his legal options and
his decision-making abilities are 	intact. 	His behavior was well-
controlled during the interview, suggesting the ability to work with
defense counsel and his ability to manifest appropriate courtroom
behavior. 	Mr. Lester expressed some concerns about his attorney;
however they were not delusional or irrational. 	He understands that
defense counsel is supposed to help him and he reported that he
does trust his attorney's judgment. 	Mr. Lester is further capable of
participating in planning a defense strategy and to make reasoned
choices during courtroom proceedings. 	Therefore, it is my opinion

No. 70124-0-1/4
that Mr. Lester has the capacity to understand the nature of the
proceedings against him and the capacity to assist in his defense.
Dr. Johnson testified that low scores on 	Dr. Neer's neuropsychological
tests "doesn't necessarily mean that it's interfering with his functional capabilities
to—to be able to assist his attorney or to understand the court process." 	She
opined that Lester "demonstrates the requisite abilities to be able to understand
the court process, to reasonably and rationally think about that and to assist his
attorney."
The 	court 	also 	considered 	testimony from 	Nykia Johnson, 	a 	release
planner at the King County Correctional Facility. 	Johnson met with Lester in
March 	2012 	to 	discuss 	release 	planning 	services. 	She 	testified 	that 	she
contacted Lester's public defender social worker after this meeting to express her
concerns that Lester seemed disoriented and reported difficulty performing his
adult daily living skills.
Additionally, the court considered testimony from King County Correctional
Officers Kenneth Morano and Vincent Johnston. 	Officer Morano testified that
when he had contact with Lester in jail, Lester never appeared disoriented and
had no difficulty following directions or communicating. 	Officer Johnston testified
that Lester demonstrated no confusion, disorientation, or memory problems, and
was able to follow instructions.

No. 70124-0-1/5
Following a hearing, the court found Lester competent to stand trial. 	A
jury found Lester guilty of assault in the first degree.1
Lester appeals.
Analysis
Lester claims that he "was unable to assist his attorney in his defense
because of his mental deficiencies." 	Both the due process clause of the United
States Constitution and RCW 10.77.050 prohibit trying an incompetent criminal
defendant.2 	"In Washington, 	a 	defendant 	is 	competent to 	stand 	trial 	if he
understands the nature of the charges and is capable of assisting in his own
defense."3
Washington courts generally presume that a defendant is competent to
stand trial and to assist in his own defense.4 	Based upon this presumption of
competency, the defendant bears the burden of proving that he is incompetent to
stand 	trial.5 	In 	determining 	competence, 	the 	trial 	court 	considers 	the
"'defendant's appearance, demeanor, conduct, personal and family history, past
1 The case proceeded to trial on charges of murder in the second degree,
assault in the first degree, and assault in the second degree. 	The jury found
Lester not guilty of murder in the second degree and guilty of assault in the
second degree. 	The court dismissed and vacated the conviction for assault in
the second degree due to double jeopardy.
2 State v. Lewis, 141 Wn. App. 367, 381, 166 P.3d 786 (2007) (citing Pate
v. Robinson. 383 U.S. 375, 386, 86 S. Ct. 836, 15 L. Ed. 2d 815 (1966); In re
Pers. Restraint of Fleming. 142 Wn.2d 853, 861, 16 P.3d 610 (2001)).
3 Lewis, 141 Wn. App. at 381.
4 State v. Colev. 171 Wn. App. 177, 	179, 286 P.3d 712 (2012), review
granted. 176 Wn.2d 1024 (2013).
5 Colev, 171 Wn. App. at 179.

No. 70124-0-1/6
behavior, medical and psychiatric reports and the statements of counsel.'"6 	We
will not reverse a trial court's competency determination absent a manifest abuse
of discretion.7 	"'A trial court abuses its discretion when its order is manifestly
unreasonable or based on 	untenable grounds' and 	it 'necessarily abuses its
discretion if it applies the incorrect legal standard.'"8
Here, the trial court found "by a preponderance of the evidence that the
defendant understands the nature of the proceedings against him and is able to
effectively assist counsel in the defense of his case." 	Based upon this finding,
the court concluded "by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is
competent to stand trial."
Lester argues that Dr. Neer's report and testimony are more credible than
Dr. Johnson's. 	"'Credibility determinations are for the trier of fact and are not
subject to appellate review. 	We must defer to the [trier of fact] on issues of
conflicting 	testimony, 	credibility 	of 	witnesses, 	and 	persuasiveness 	of 	the
evidence.'"9 	The trial court had broad discretion to weigh the witnesses' reports
and testimony about Lester's competency. Although Lester did not testify at trial,
6 Fleming, 142 Wn.2d at 863 (quoting State v. Dodd, 70 Wn.2d 513, 514,
424 P.2d 302 (1967)).
7 Lewis, 141 Wn. App. at 381 (citing State v. Crenshaw, 27 Wn. App. 326,
330, 617 P.2d 1041 (1980)).
8 Kreidlerv. Cascade Nat. Ins. Co., No. 71063-0-1, 2014 WL 943108, at *7
(Wash. Ct. App. Mar. 10, 2014) (quoting Gillett v. Conner. 132 Wn. App. 818,
822, 133 P.3d 960 (2006)).
9 State 	v. 	Mashek, 	177 	Wn. 	App. 	749, 	756, 	312 	P.3d 	774 	(2013)
(alteration in original) (quoting State v. Liden, 138 Wn. App. 110, 117, 156 P.3d
259 (2007)).

No. 70124-0-1/7
the court had the opportunity to observe his appearance, demeanor, and conduct
in the courtroom.
The record indicates no irrational behavior. 	Lester does not show how
any noted cognitive impairments prevented him from understanding the nature of
the proceedings or effectively assisting his attorney. 	Lester fails to show that the
trial court abused its discretion when it determined that he was competent to
stand trial.
Conclusion
Because Lester fails to show that the trial court abused its discretion when
it found him competent to stand trial, we affirm.
?A^g>^n,
WE CONCUR:
^ 	^•^v, l-O
C=3
rj} r;_;
•—
jr-
X" 	PP. 	1
-o 	' 	<~\
ZXi 	£2~*)r
ro
—- 	— 	.1 )
2> ~\l ;'
i •- 	CO P" r
ro 	tn<-,J	
»• 	—1 r-—,-
O".