Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Memorandum Decision shall not be
Sep 08 2014, 8:59 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of establishing
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
C. ROBERT RITTMAN GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Grant County Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana
Marion, Indiana
JODI KATHRYN STEIN
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
GARY WILDER, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 27A02-1311-CR-978
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE GRANT SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Mark E. Spitzer, Judge
Cause No. 27C01-1211-FC-252
September 8, 2014
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
KIRSCH, Judge
Gary Wilder appeals his convictions,1 following a jury trial, for criminal
confinement2 as a Class C felony, criminal recklessness3 as a Class A misdemeanor, and
criminal mischief4 as a Class A misdemeanor. On appeal, Wilder raises only one issue,
whether the trial court erred by failing to conduct a hearing or make a finding regarding
Wilder’s competency to stand trial.
We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On November 10, 2012, T.S. and E.J., fellow fifth-graders, walked toward a park in
Marion, Indiana. As the girls approached the intersection of First Street and the State Road
9 bypass, a car approached them that was operated by a man, later identified as Wilder.
Wilder pulled up next to the two girls, opened his door, and started to get out. E.J., who
did not feel safe, ran into the middle of the bypass.
James Devine, who was driving by at the time, almost hit E.J. as he watched Wilder
grab T.S. from behind, pick her up, and carry her about five steps toward his vehicle.
Devine turned his vehicle around and yelled at Wilder through his window. Wilder put
T.S. down and fled in his vehicle. E.J. was pointing and yelling, so Devine followed
Wilder. A high speed chase through a residential neighborhood ensued. On Fourth Street,
1
We note that the General Assembly enacted a new version of the criminal statutes at issue, which
became effective July 1, 2014. Because Wilder committed his crimes in November 2012, we apply the
statutes in effect at the time he committed his crimes.
2
See Ind. Code § 35-42-3-3.
3
See Ind. Code § 35-42-2-2.
4
See Ind. Code § 35-43-1-2.
2
a vehicle struck Wilder’s car and caused it to crash into a large tree stump. The police
arrived and arrested Wilder. By that time, T.S. and E.J. had already fled to E.J.’s home
and reported the attempted abduction to E.J.’s father.
Witnesses testified that Wilder told several people at the scene that he thought T.S.
was his niece. Officer Derrick Sessoms and Detective Benjamin Caudell, both of the
Marion Police Department, and Wilder, all testified that Wilder thought T.S. was his
friend’s daughter.
On November 13, 2012, Wilder was charged with Class C felony confinement,
Class A misdemeanor criminal recklessness, and Class A misdemeanor criminal mischief.
Three days later, Wilder appeared at his initial hearing and informed the trial court that he
did not suffer from any mental or emotional disability and that he understood the charges
against him. The trial court appointed a public defender for Wilder.
On April 1, 2013, the date set for the jury trial, a hearing was held outside the
presence of the venire panel. During that hearing, Wilder said that he was not satisfied
with his attorney and then questioned the integrity of the trial judge and the legal system.
While both attorneys stated that they were ready to proceed to trial that day, defense
counsel said he had evidence that would support the giving of an insanity instruction.
Following further discussion, the trial court granted defense counsel a ninety-day
continuance so that Wilder could be evaluated for competency to stand trial and to
determine his mental state at the time of the crimes charged.
On April 12, 2013, Wilder filed a Motion for Psychiatric Evaluation, which the trial
court approved on April 23, 2013, appointing Frank H. Krause, Ed.D., HSPP, CSP and
3
Craig Buckles, M.D. Drs. Krause and Buckles filed their reports with the trial court on
May 21, 2013 and May 23, 2013, respectively. In his report, Dr. Krause stated:
Therefore, it is my professional opinion that after reviewing Court
documents, including medical records, an interview, and the results of
psychological testing, Gary Wilder is able to understand the charges and the
Court proceedings in this matter, and to assist his attorney in the preparation
of his defense. 5
Appellant’s App. at 72. Dr. Buckles noted that Wilder is intelligent, communicates well,
and understands his charges, and concluded that Wilder “is competent to stand trial.” 6 Id.
at 68. On May 24, 2013, Wilder filed a belated notice of insanity defense, and the trial
court allowed Wilder “to interpose the defense of insanity at trial.” Appellant’s App. at 5,
66.
A two-day jury trial was held on June 3-4, 2013. Fourteen witnesses testified for
the State, Wilder and his niece testified for the defense, and Drs. Krause and Buckles
testified as witnesses of the court regarding the insanity defense. The jury returned verdicts
of guilty but mentally ill on each of the three counts. At sentencing, the trial court imposed
an eight-year executed sentence for the Class C felony confinement conviction, a
concurrent one-year executed sentence for the Class A criminal recklessness conviction,
5
Regarding the applicability of the insanity defense, Dr. Krause stated, “It is also my professional
opinion that Mr. Wilder suffers from a severely abnormal mental condition that grossly and demonstrably
impairs his condition so that he could not appreciate the wrongfulness of the charged conduct at the time
of the offense.” Appellant’s App. at 72
6
Regarding the applicability of the insanity defense, Dr. Buckles also concluded that, “Although
[Wilder] understands that it is wrong to confine, drive dangerously, or damage other’s property, at the time
it occurred his judgment was considerably impaired by his manic and delusional state.” Appellant’s App.
at 68. Dr. Buckles concluded, Wilder, “therefore, was not able to understand the wrongfulness of his
conduct at the time it occurred. I hope that Mr. Wilder can receive proper psychiatric treatment. He will
probably require a long term mental health commitment to compel medication and ensure compliance.” Id.
4
and a concurrent one-year executed sentence for the Class A misdemeanor criminal
mischief conviction. Additionally, the trial court stated:
I am going to make a recommendation to the Department of Correction[] that
the Defendant receive appropriate treatment for his mental health and that
that be taken into consideration in his placement at the Department of
Correction[]. It’s my hope that the Defendant will seek appropriate treatment
because I think if he does seek appropriate treatment and that’s his best
opportunity to return to being a productive member of society and one that
does not present risk to our community . . . .
Tr. at 355.
Wilder filed his motion to correct error on August 7, 2013, alleging that his trial
counsel was ineffective for failing to secure attendance of various witnesses at trial who
Wilder believed would have provided exculpatory evidence. Following a hearing, the trial
court denied Wilder’s motion on October 21, 2013. Wilder now appeals. Additional facts
will be supplied where needed.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
Wilder contends that the trial court erred by failing to conduct a hearing or make a
finding regarding his competency to stand trial. As the State correctly notes, defense
counsel waived this issue by failing to object to the lack of a hearing or to the fact that the
trial court did not make a formal competency determination. See Archer v. State, 996
N.E.2d 341, 351 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (citing Stafford v. State, 736 N.E.2d 326, 332 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2000) (there, defendant did not make timely objection to jury instructions, and
issue was waived for appellate review), trans. denied), trans. denied. Accordingly, Wilder
must show that the error, if any, rises to the level of fundamental error. Id. Fundamental
error is an extremely narrow exception that allows a defendant to avoid waiver of an issue.
5
Cooper v. State, 854 N.E.2d 831, 836 (Ind. 2006). “For an error to be fundamental, it must
be a ‘substantial, blatant violation of basic principles of due process that renders the trial
unfair to the defendant.’” Archer, 996 N.E.2d at 351 (quoting Stafford, 736 N.E.2d at 332).
As we explain below, while the fundamental error standard applies, here, the trial court
committed no error, fundamental or otherwise.
Indiana Code section 35-36-3-1 provides:
(a) If at any time before the final submission of any criminal case to the court
or the jury trying the case, the court has reasonable grounds for believing that
the defendant lacks the ability to understand the proceedings and assist in the
preparation of a defense, the court shall immediately fix a time for a hearing
to determine whether the defendant has that ability. The court shall appoint
two (2) or three (3) competent, disinterested:
(1) psychiatrists;
(2) psychologists endorsed by the Indiana state board of examiners in
psychology as health service providers in psychology; or
(3) physicians;
who have expertise in determining competency.
Our court has said that “‘the conviction of an incompetent defendant is a denial of federal
due process and a denial of a state statutory right as well.’” Minnick v. State, 965 N.E.2d
124, 131 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (quoting Gibbs. v. State, 952 N.E.2d 214, 219 (Ind. Ct. App.
2011), trans. denied), trans. denied. “A defendant is not competent to stand trial when he
is unable to understand the proceedings and assist in the preparation of his defense.” Id.
(citing Mast v. State, 914 N.E.2d 851, 856 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied).
Nevertheless, “the right to a competency hearing is not absolute.” Id. (citing Mast, 914
N.E.2d at 856). “Instead, such a hearing is required only when a trial court is confronted
with evidence creating a reasonable or bona fide doubt as to a defendant’s competency.”
6
Id. (citing Mast, 914 N.E.2d at 856) (emphasis in original). “The decision regarding
whether there is a reasonable doubt is within the trial court’s discretion and depends upon
the specific facts and circumstances of each case.” Id. “We will only reverse the trial
court’s decision if we find that the trial court has abused its discretion.” Id. The trial court
has abused its discretion when its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts
and circumstances before the court or when the trial court has misinterpreted the law. Id.
As we explain below, under the facts before us, the trial court had no evidence creating a
reasonable doubt as to Wilder’s competency, i.e., his ability to understand the proceedings
and assist in the preparation of his defense.
During the initial hearing, Wilder coherently answered the trial judge’s questions
regarding Wilder’s age, date of birth, social security number, and address. Tr. at 2. Wilder
told the judge that he was not under the influence of drugs and did not suffer from any
mental or emotional disability that would affect his ability to understand the proceedings.
Id. The trial judge also confirmed that Wilder understood the allegations against him and
then set forth the rights he was entitled to in a criminal prosecution. Id. at 3-4. When
asked, Wilder confirmed that he had no questions concerning his rights. Id. at 4. At the
close of the hearing, the trial court appointed a public defender for Wilder. Id. at 5.
The jury trial was set for April 1, 2013. During that hearing, and out of the presence
of the jury venire, Wilder stated his dissatisfaction with his attorney. Id. at 9-10. He also
made unusual comments to the court that: he was being “railroaded into prison to appease
the powers that be”; “[t]he corruption going on in front of and behind this bench is appalling
and unconstitutional”; and that “[y]ou are serving one of two masters, not both, God or
7
Satan or one or the other.” Id. at 10. Both attorneys stated that they were ready to go to
trial that day. Wilder had previously refused to pursue an insanity defense; however,
defense counsel stated that Wilder now wanted the trial to focus on “his mental frame or
his culpability based on mental illness.” Id. at 19. Defense counsel noted that he had
“some evidence that would support, at least, the insanity instruction.” Id. at 18.
When the trial judge asked whether Wilder should be evaluated, defense counsel
stated, “[W]e haven’t asked for competency.” Id. at 26. The trial court found two issues.
“One is competency and I’m not hearing anything about competency to stand trial.” Id. at
27. The second issue was whether Wilder “had the ability to develop a mens rea at the
time that the offense was committed so that’s an issue of insanity.” Id. The trial court
asked defense counsel, “I don’t hear you saying that you want a competency evaluation, .
. . is that right in terms of his ability to participate in trial and to assist or are you asking for
that as well?”, defense counsel responded, “I suppose I should ask for that as well.” Id.
The trial court granted defense counsel a ninety-day continuance so that Wilder
could be evaluated for competency to stand trial and to determine his mental state at the
time of the crimes charged. Id. The trial court approved Wilder’s request for a psychiatric
evaluation on April 23, 2013 and appointed Drs. Krause and Buckles, who filed their
reports with the trial court on May 21, 2013 and May 23, 2013, respectively, concluding
that Wilder was competent to stand trial. Appellant’s App. at 68, 72. Drs. Krause and
Buckles also testified at trial, restating their respective opinions that Wilder was competent
to stand trial.
During trial, Wilder testified in his own defense. Wilder clearly explained that he
8
was fifty-two years old, grew up in Marion, and had served in the Air Force from 1981 to
1983, at which time he received an honorable discharge. Tr. at 190. He attended high
school but left nine-weeks shy of graduation. Id. at 193-94. Since that time Wilder had
worked at various factory jobs. Id. at 191. Around the age of twelve years old, Wilder was
diagnosed with a psychiatric illness, and he received psychiatric care from the VA during
the 1980s and 1990s. Id. at 193, 195. From 2008 to 2011, Wilder had a court order to take
psychiatric medication. Id. at 196. Once the court order expired, Wilder quit taking his
medication. Id. at 197.
Wilder testified that, prior to the incident, he was not sleeping and did not feel well.
Id. at 201. In preparation for a medical appointment, he wrote down “eighty-six feelings”
he was having that he could not understand. Id. at 201. During that same time Wilder
requested that a clinic perform a blood test because he thought he was being drugged. Id.
at 202. Around noon on the day in question, Wilder said he gave his Dad lunch and then
was dealing with “manna,” which he described as a gift from God. Id. at 205. Wilder
explained that it was while he was in this state of mind that he encountered T.S. and E.J.
Thinking that T.S. was the daughter of Wilder’s friend, Wilder asked what they were doing
there. When the girls did not respond, Wilder lifted T.S. up and started toward his car with
the plan to take the girl back home. When Wilder realized that T.S. was not his friend’s
daughter, he put her down and returned to his car. Wilder then saw Devine, and concerned
that he was “coming after me,” Wilder took off at a reckless speed and, ultimately, crashed
into a car and then a tree stump. Id. at 211-12.
In his testimony, Wilder did not deny that he engaged in a high-speed chase with
9
Devine and that he crashed into another car. Id. at 212. He did, however, claim that his
interaction with T.S. arose because he was off his medications, wasn’t “thinking right that
day,” and mistook T.S. for his friend’s daughter. Id. at 216. While it was clear that Wilder
had serious mental health issues, those issues did not affect his competency to stand trial.
Wilder appeared competent at his initial hearing, he was examined by Drs. Krause and
Buckles who concluded that he was competent to stand trial, and Wilder’s testimony at
trial was coherent and his defense was reasonable. Accordingly, the trial court did not
abuse its discretion when it failed to conduct a hearing or make a finding regarding
Wilder’s competency to stand trial.
Affirmed.
BAILEY, J., and MAY, J., concur.
10