IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
No. 81346-3-I
Respondent,
DIVISION ONE
v.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
JUSTYN MYLES BUSCH,
Appellant.
COBURN, J. — Appellant Justyn Busch was charged with unlawful
possession of a firearm in the second degree. Before his first trial, he was found
not competent, but his competency was restored at Western State Hospital. At
his first trial, the trial judge, based on his observations, declared a mistrial and
ordered a new competency evaluation. After a finding of competency, a second
trial was held, and no one requested a new competency evaluation. A jury found
Busch guilty. He appeals arguing that the second trial judge should have
ordered a new competency evaluation. We affirm, but we remand to strike the
DNA collection fee from the judgment and sentence.
FACTS
In May 2019, Busch was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm in
the second degree. About a month later, the court signed an order for a
competency evaluation. The competency evaluator reported that Busch suffered
Citations and pin cites are based on the Westlaw online version of the cited material.
No. 81346-3-I
from psychotic disorders that prevented him from understanding the nature of the
legal proceedings or assisting his attorney.
Accordingly, the court determined that Busch was incompetent to stand
trial, and it entered an order committing Busch for competency restoration. After
restoration in November, the court found him competent to stand trial.
Trial began in January 2020. During jury selection, defense counsel
alerted the court that Busch seemed agitated. Busch was “not really responding”
to officers’ requests and not responding to defense counsel’s requests. The
court observed that there were now four officers standing within a few feet of the
defendant, which it felt indicated the officers had a heightened concern for
whatever was going on. The court added that it was familiar with the officers and
that they were experienced. The court asked Busch, “[W]hat’s going on today?
You seem to be in a different state than yesterday.” Busch responded with a
long incoherent statement. Defense counsel stated that when he met with Busch
the prior week, Busch’s thoughts were more coherent than they were that
morning.
The court noted that competency is fluid. The court explained that at that
point in time it had concerns about Busch’s demeanor in court and that it felt the
only solution was to sign a competency evaluation order and declare a mistrial.
The court reasoned:
[l]t does appear that there’s indication from jail staff that
there has been a refusal to take medication. Also I’m seeing
detailed in this document what I can only describe as assaultive,
disruptive-type of behavior as well as threats to self. So based on
all of this and the continued, again, I am not sure if it’s responding
to internal or external stimuli, but it seems to me it's internal. As
2
No. 81346-3-I
well as the lack of linear response to question, the overall
demeanor at this time I think there is a manifest necessity to
declare a mistrial. It’s just entirely unclear to me whether or not this
individual is actually competent, whether he can assist his attorney.
His attorney has clearly indicated they’re having issues which
seems to be a lack of communication this morning. Mr. Busch’s
demeanor is very different than it was the entirety of yesterday.
In February, Busch was again found competent.
A second trial began in March. The State requested to have Busch
restrained for a CrR 3.5, 3.6 suppression hearing, basing its request in part on
Busch’s behavior at the last trial that drew the trial judge’s attention.
In arguing against restraints, defense counsel argued that his client had
not acted out in any physical aggressive manner and went on to explain what
had happened in the previous trial and the circumstances that led to a mistrial.
Defense counsel stated, “Mr. Busch has never acted out in the courtroom. He
has refused a lot of court appearances, but when he’s present he has never
acted out.” At that point, Busch interjected, “I never refused a court appearance.
The COs[1] have refused to transport me to court and that is a contempt of the
law. Whatever. I’ve never refused a court appearance.”
The court noted that it had read somewhere that Busch may be on “some
sort of medication” and defense counsel explained that previously a judge had
granted a request for forced medications. The court inquired into whether Busch
was medicated. Counsel responded that Busch was choosing not to answer this
question. The court explained it did not have a problem with that, but that the
information would help the court’s decision. Busch then addressed the court:
1 Presumably, Busch was referring to corrections officers.
3
No. 81346-3-I
The matters -- the matters, Your Honor, to be specific, to be
exact, I’ve been in Snohomish County for the last ten months. This
will be 300 days.
I’ve been all over the world for numerous amount of
accomplishments, as well as unfortunate detainings, as I have
some type of notoriety of being an African prince. So there is
somewhat of a infatuation of my presence in all different areas and
aspects.
Unfortunately while being in this county, I have endured the
most hinderous, the most obvious and oblique, consistent violation
of my civil rights as well as my trial rights, where it is not fair to say
that I’m standing here a competent man to go to trial due to mental
health issues.
In regards to this case proceeding in criminal matters and
criminal court, I’m competent, yes, I am, with adequate mindset.
But it is not fair to say in the least that this trial in proceeding in any
type of way or fashion with medication, therapy, all of the other
different things. I’m going to do it regardless when I get out of here.
That’s the only way I’ll be able to rebound. Being tased is not
helpful, you know, and pass-throughs. You know, being denied
court transport as far as what happened Friday, you know, a CO
named Henry with the oblique and obvious neglect from Sergeant
Schwartz being present.
So as a person tries to call themself making a record,
I’m definitely well familiar with the court proceedings and the
process for me to go ahead and efficiently make on record the
matter of my conditions and my mental status when being asked
and being pertains. I’m not speaking incompetency here, to say the
least, right, when you ask me about if I'm taking medication on that
grounds.
So with that being said, there is definitely a lot of different
things to presume regardless once I get out and huge rehabilitation
processing step that I have to take. And it’s very unfortunate
because my father is an attorney in Texas. I went down there to go
meet him. Came back. Trying to get my life established and set up,
and somehow I end up in this.
So I’m sitting in this whole process. This is not a courtroom
or a federal courtroom, but I have several different cases, as well
as a 42.90 U.S.C. 93. So many different things going on right now
it’s not realistic to say that a question can simply be answered yes
or no about whether I’m taking medication.
Defense counsel then explained the issues with the officers during the last
trial. They had questioned why Busch was walking around counsel’s table, which
4
No. 81346-3-I
is what he and counsel had done the day before to prepare for jury voir dire.
Busch became upset, stood against the wall, and would not sit down. Defense
counsel then highlighted Busch’s history of mental health evaluations and stated,
I have told [the prosecutor] I have told [the prior trial judge], and I
will tell this court, Mr. Busch has been found competent by Western
State Hospital. In my humble opinion he’s not competent to stand
trial. He cannot assist in his defense from one very important
aspect. If he wishes to take the stand, which is his absolute right, I
have no confidence that I can ask him a question and get an
answer that I would expect or that would be to the point. The court
asked a very simple question to me to ask Mr. Busch about
medication. He refused to respond to me, but then on his own
decided to respond to the court. In responding to that question he
talked about being an African prince, his father being a lawyer in
Texas. All of that could be true –
Busch interjected and said, “It is very true.” Defense counsel then stated,
-- it is not in response to the question being asked. So that
is my concern in terms of his ability to assist me in representing
him.
If you ask him what a prosecutor does, what a judge does,
what I do, what a plea bargain is, all of the things that Western
State Hospital does in their evaluations, he answers those
questions fine. He’s a very smart man, but he does suffer from
mental illness.
I don’t have the answer for this court. You know, I don’t have
the answer for this court, but if the court is asking me what my
opinion is of Mr. Busch’s competency, I don’t believe he’s
competent.
The court responded, “Well, we’re not here on a competency evaluation. He’s
already been found competent to stand trial by a previous court based upon a[n]
evaluation of Western State. I’m not going to look at that at this point. The issue
is whether I keep him in restraints or not.”
The prosecutor then said that the previous order finding Busch competent
was in agreement of the parties, that defense counsel did not challenge
5
No. 81346-3-I
competency in the weeks leading up to this trial, and “[s]o unless there are new
concerns, I would ask that the court proceed either way.” Defense counsel
responded that he has told prosecutors that “Western State will find him
competent. I have believed him to be incompetent from day one, and that
maintains my position. Whether I sign an order agreed, approved to form,
whatever, we cannot continue to go on the hamster wheel. If you’re asking me if
he’s competent, absolute[ly] not, and that has been my position consistently.”
Busch interjected again to remind defense counsel, “He was asking you
about the restraints.” The court agreed, “The issue here is whether or not I
should restrain him or not.” The court denied the State’s request to restrain
Busch.
After the State presented its evidence in the suppression hearing, the
court asked Busch whether he wished to testify, and Busch stated, “I choose not
to testify, Your Honor. I choose to plead my Fifth Amendment right, Your Honor.”
During jury selection, defense counsel in questioning a juror stated, “Mr.
Busch has made some noises and outbursts a little bit here. Has that been a
problem for you?” The juror said, “No. That’s his prerogative, I guess.” Another
juror said, “I figure he’s probably nervous.”
After the State closed its case, defense counsel told the court that he
explained to Busch that he had the absolute right to testify and could do so
against his advice but that Busch did not wish to testify. When the court
questioned Busch, he confirmed that statement was correct. Busch did not
testify.
6
No. 81346-3-I
After the jury was excused for lunch after both parties rested, the
prosecutor made a record that while the court was instructing the jury, “it
appeared that Mr. Busch was lifting and waving his hands at the jury while they
were being instructed.” The court was not alarmed stating, “I also looked at Mr.
Busch and I didn’t see anything unusual given what I’ve seen previously. Any
hand movements could be interpreted in any way.”
The jury found Busch guilty as charged.
At sentencing, the court found Busch indigent and imposed the $100 DNA
collections fee and the $500 victim penalty assessment fee.
DISCUSSION
Competency
Busch contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it did not
order another competency evaluation when there was a reason to doubt his
competency. We disagree.
The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution guarantees an accused the fundamental right not to stand
trial if he is legally incompetent. State v. Ortiz-Abrego, 187 Wn.2d 394, 402-03,
387 P.3d 638 (2017). Further, under RCW 10.77.050, “[n]o incompetent person
shall be tried, convicted, or sentenced for the commission of an offense so long
as such incapacity continues.” “ ‘Incompetency’ means a person lacks the
capacity to understand the nature of the proceedings against him or her or to
assist in his or her own defense as a result of mental disease or defect.” RCW
10.77.010(16).
7
No. 81346-3-I
A trial court must order a competency evaluation whenever there is a
reason to doubt competency. RCW 10.77.060(1)(a). This requirement continues
even after a determination of competency. However, once there has been a
determination that a defendant is competent to stand trial, a trial court need not
revisit the issue of competency unless some objective incident or event occurs
where the court is provided with new information that indicates a significant
change in the defendant’s mental condition. State v. Ortiz, 119 Wn.2d 294, 301,
831 P.2d 1060 (1992).
When making the determination of whether a competency evaluation is
necessary, the factors the trial court considers include the defendant’s behavior,
demeanor, appearance, personal and family history, and psychiatric reports.
State v. McCarthy, 193 Wn.2d 792, 801, 446 P.3d 167 (2019). Further, the court
should afford “considerable weight” to a defense attorney’s opinion regarding his
or her client’s competency. Id.
Whether a trial court should have sua sponte ordered a competency
evaluation is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Id. at 803. “Discretion is abused
when the trial court’s decision is manifestly unreasonable, or is exercised on
untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.” State v. Blackwell, 120 Wn.2d
822, 830, 845 P.2d 1017 (1993). If the issue of competency is “fairly debatable,”
failure to order a subsequent evaluation does not violate RCW 10.77.060, and
the trial court did not abuse its discretion. McCarthy, 193 Wn.2 at 803.
Busch asserts that the court should have ordered a competency
evaluation before proceeding with a second trial. He argues that his “extensive
8
No. 81346-3-I
history of mental health issues, including numerous prior inpatient, outpatient,
and involuntary treatment holds, should have caused [the court] great concern.”
Further, he argues that his prior competency evaluations, a prior mistrial, and
defense counsel’s belief that Busch was not competent also should have caused
the court concern. Id. However, these were all incidents that happened prior to
Busch having been evaluated again and found competent. The incidents were
not new information that indicated a significant change in Busch’s mental
condition since having been found competent.
Additionally, Busch contends the incidents that occurred on the day of the
suppression hearing and during the second trial should have caused the court
concern. We disagree.
First, Busch points to the prosecutor informing the court that court staff
told the prosecutor that they observed Busch acting aggressively on the morning
before the suppression hearing. However, the record contains nothing more
about Busch’s behavior that morning other than hearsay from the prosecutor.
Instead, the prosecutor highlighted what had happened at the first trial that led to
a mistrial. Furthermore, defense counsel successfully argued to the court that
Busch did nothing to warrant restraining him.
Busch next points to his long-winded answer when the court inquired if he
was taking medications. Although Busch’s statement was long, he demonstrated
that he was able to track what the court was asking him and stated, “In regards to
this case proceeding in criminal matters and criminal court, I'm competent, yes, I
am, with adequate mindset. . . . So many different things going on right now it’s
9
No. 81346-3-I
not realistic to say that a question can simply be answered yes or no about
whether I’m taking medication.” Busch, on appeal, mischaracterizes this
statement as an indication that Busch “could not answer the court’s question
about any medication he was taking,” as opposed to choosing not to answer.
Busch also points to his reference to being an African prince. Although
Busch refers to himself as an African prince and purports that his father is a
lawyer in Texas, there is nothing in the record to contradict that. 2 Regardless, if it
was a delusion, delusions are not enough to constitute a “significant change”
requiring the court to order a new competency evaluation after a previous
competency evaluation found the defendant competent. McCarthy, 193 Wn.2d at
806 (“[A]lthough delusions may have been apparent, there was no evidence
presented to the trial court that would cast doubt on the defendant’s ability to
recall facts, communicate with his attorney, or understand the ramifications and
consequences of the crime.”).
Busch’s statement may have been long-winded, but it was not a non-linear
incomprehensible statement. In fact, Busch is the one who correctly reminded
defense counsel that he was veering off track discussing his competency when
the question from the court was about restraints. After defense counsel’s lengthy
statement about Busch’s history with mental health evaluations, Busch told his
counsel, “He was asking you about the restraints.” The court agreed. After the
exchange, the court denied the State’s request for restraints.
2Busch’s counsel stated, “In responding to that question he talked about
being an African prince, his father being a lawyer in Texas. All of that could be
true –”
10
No. 81346-3-I
Busch next points to an observation defense counsel alluded to during voir
dire when defense counsel asked a juror, “Mr. Busch has made some noises and
outbursts a little bit here. Has that been a problem for you?” The juror
responded, “No. That’s his prerogative, I guess. I don’t know how else to say
that.” When defense counsel asked a second juror the same question, the juror
answered, “I figure he’s probably nervous, so –“ The record lacks any further
description of Busch’s “little bit” of noises and outbursts. Tellingly, the jurors
themselves did not find any concern with them.
Lastly, Busch points to the prosecutor’s observations that the defendant
was “lifting and waving his hands at the jury while they were being instructed.”
The court responded that it also looked at Busch and “didn’t see anything
unusual given what [it had] seen previously. Any hand movements could be
interpreted in any way.”
Moreover, the record indicates that Busch understood his rights and knew
how to exercise them. He chose not to testify at both the suppression hearing
and at trial at the advice of his counsel. He told the court, “I choose not to testify,
Your Honor. I choose to plead my Fifth Amendment right, Your Honor.”
Contrary to what Busch contends, the record is absent of a significant
change in the defendant’s mental condition. Accordingly, the court in the second
trial did not abuse its discretion when it did not order a new competency
evaluation.
11
No. 81346-3-I
Legal Financial Obligations
Busch contends that the trial court erred by imposing the $100 DNA
collection fee without first inquiring into whether Busch’s mental health issues
impacted his ability to pay the fee.
“RCW 9.94A.777(1) requires that a trial court determine whether a
defendant who suffers from a mental health condition has the ability to pay any
[legal financial obligations], mandatory or discretionary.” State v. Tedder, 194
Wn. App. 753, 756, 378 P.2d 246 (2016). RCW 9.94A.777(1) provides:
Before imposing any legal financial obligations upon a defendant
who suffers from a mental health condition, other than restitution or
the victim penalty assessment under RCW 7.68.035, a judge must
first determine that the defendant, under the terms of this section,
has the means to pay such additional sums.
The State does not object to striking this fee.
CONCLUSION
The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it did not order a
competency evaluation because nothing in the record suggested a significant
change since Busch was last found competent. Thus, we affirm, but remand for
the trial court to strike the imposition of the DNA collection fee from the judgment
and sentence.
WE CONCUR:
12