Cite as 2020 Ark. 344 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR-20-291 Opinion Delivered: October 29, 2020
ALFONZO HAMPTON APPEAL FROM THE BRADLEY APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 06CR-17-6]
V. HONORABLE SAM POPE, JUDGE
AFFIRMED. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE
JOHN DAN KEMP, Chief Justice
Appellant Alfonzo Hampton appeals a judgment of the Bradley County Circuit Court
convicting him of first-degree murder and possession of a firearm by certain persons and
sentencing him to life imprisonment and ten years’ imprisonment, respectively. For reversal,
he argues that the circuit court erred in finding that he was fit to proceed to trial. We affirm.
I. Facts
On February 21, 2017, Hampton entered the Warren Police Department and told
officers that he had killed his father, Fred Hampton, and that the body was in the trunk of
his car. Hampton also pulled out a gun and handed it to one of the officers. Officers
recovered Fred Hampton’s body from the trunk of Hampton’s car. A forensic pathologist
determined that Fred Hampton’s cause of death was two gunshot wounds to the head.
The State charged Hampton with first-degree murder and possession of a firearm by
certain persons. On August 28, 2017, Hampton moved for a competency determination. The circuit court ordered that he be evaluated to determine his fitness to proceed. In February
2018, the circuit court received a report from Dr. Lacey Willett Matthews at the Arkansas
State Hospital in which she opined that Hampton was unfit to proceed to trial. At a March
5, 2018 hearing, the circuit court found Hampton not fit to proceed and committed him to
the custody of the Arkansas State Hospital until he was restored to fitness. Hampton then
underwent restoration proceedings through an outpatient restoration program.
On September 14, 2018, an evaluation report by Dr. Julie Wood, a forensic
psychologist, was filed with the circuit court. Dr. Wood opined that Hampton “did not lack
the capacity to understand the proceedings against him and did not lack the capacity to assist
effectively in his own defense.” Hampton’s trial counsel asked the circuit court to delay ruling
on Hampton’s fitness until he could obtain an independent evaluation. Hampton was
evaluated by Dr. Raymond K. Molden, a forensic psychiatrist, on November 12, 2018. In a
report submitted on April 7, 2019, Dr. Molden opined that Hampton understood the
proceedings against him but lacked the capacity to effectively assist his attorney.
On August 12, 2019, the circuit court again held a hearing on Hampton’s fitness to
proceed. Hampton introduced Dr. Matthews’s forensic report. Additionally, Dr. Wood
testified about Hampton’s examination at the Southwest Arkansas Counseling and Mental
Health Center. Dr. Wood testified that Hampton is schizophrenic and has a long history of
schizophrenia. She acknowledged that Hampton had previously been found unfit to proceed
to trial. Although Dr. Wood was not provided with information on the medications he was
2 taking at the time of his evaluation, Hampton informed her that he was taking routine
medications in the morning and evening and that they were helping him.
Dr. Wood testified that she administered the Georgia Core Competency Test
(GCCT)—a fitness-to-proceed examination—to Hampton, and that he passed.1 She discussed
his restoration proceedings and acknowledged that the counselor who conducted those
proceedings felt that Hampton was unfit and would not become fit to proceed. Dr. Wood
testified that the counselor was not authorized or trained to make that call.
Dr. Wood explained what the GCCT involved and the questions she asked during
the GCCT. She testified that she evaluated whether Hampton had the rational capacity to
make decisions about his future and whether he understood the facts related to the
courtroom and to the crime. She testified that on the day of her evaluation, Hampton
behaved appropriately and communicated sufficiently. Dr. Wood stated that with patience,
he could testify on his own behalf.
On communication, Dr. Wood reported that she could understand Hampton 95
percent of the time. She also opined that his thought process was logical. He did not display
hallucinations, delusions, obsessions, compulsions, or phobias. He denied depression and
anxiety. Dr. Wood’s conclusion about Hampton’s thought process was based on her hour-
1 Hampton scored a 92 out of 100 on the exam administered by Dr. Wood. Any score above 70 is considered a passing score. Dr. Wood testified that the GCCT is the most commonly used fitness-to-proceed test in the state of Arkansas.
3 and-forty-five-minute interview with Hampton, during which he gave an entire history on
himself and answered her questions.
Dr. Wood opined that Hampton understood his plea options and the benefits and
consequences of a plea bargain. She based that opinion on his responses to questions on
whether he knew the meaning of guilty and not guilty, whether he knew that he could plead
not guilty despite his behavior, and whether he understood and could identify the benefits
and consequences of a plea bargain. Hampton told Dr. Wood that he would tell his lawyer
the truth of everything that happened on the date of the crime and was willing to work with
his attorney. Dr. Wood did not discuss specific defenses with Hampton because “[t]hat’s a
higher level understanding that we don’t expect our average inmate to understand.” Dr.
Wood testified that Hampton was capable, on the date of the evaluation, of making
reasonable choices about his defense. She opined that with proper medication, Hampton
was fit to proceed to trial.
Dr. Molden then testified about his November 2018 evaluation of Hampton. In
assessing Hampton’s fitness to proceed, Dr. Molden evaluated whether Hampton understood
the legal proceedings against him, both rationally and factually, and whether he had the
ability to effectively assist his attorney. Dr. Molden also administered the GCCT and
reported that Hampton passed with a score of 88 out of 100. Dr. Molden stated that
Hampton understood the proceedings against him.
Dr. Molden concluded, however, that Hampton was not fit to proceed because he
could not assist in his own defense. Specifically, Dr. Molden discussed Hampton’s long
4 history of schizophrenia and his opinion that little progress was made during restoration
proceedings. Dr. Molden believed that Hampton lacked the ability to effectively engage or to
disclose to his attorney pertinent facts, events, or his state of mind at the time of the crime.
Dr. Molden also testified about Hampton’s lack of depth or detail when answering questions
and believed that Hampton was unable to engage in a reasoned choice of legal strategies. Dr.
Molden opined that Hampton’s answers to non-case-related vignettes showed some
impairment in his reasoning ability to consider information that might be relevant to present
to his defense attorney. He opined that although Hampton could verbalize a choice, that
choice did not seem to have a rational understanding behind it. Dr. Molden testified that
during his two-hour interview with Hampton, he appeared apathetic, paranoid, guarded, and
not forthcoming. Dr. Molden believed Hampton’s fitness could be restored in another
setting with a change in medication.
Following Dr. Molden’s testimony, the State recalled Dr. Wood.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite as 2020 Ark. 344 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR-20-291 Opinion Delivered: October 29, 2020
ALFONZO HAMPTON APPEAL FROM THE BRADLEY APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 06CR-17-6]
V. HONORABLE SAM POPE, JUDGE
AFFIRMED. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE
JOHN DAN KEMP, Chief Justice
Appellant Alfonzo Hampton appeals a judgment of the Bradley County Circuit Court
convicting him of first-degree murder and possession of a firearm by certain persons and
sentencing him to life imprisonment and ten years’ imprisonment, respectively. For reversal,
he argues that the circuit court erred in finding that he was fit to proceed to trial. We affirm.
I. Facts
On February 21, 2017, Hampton entered the Warren Police Department and told
officers that he had killed his father, Fred Hampton, and that the body was in the trunk of
his car. Hampton also pulled out a gun and handed it to one of the officers. Officers
recovered Fred Hampton’s body from the trunk of Hampton’s car. A forensic pathologist
determined that Fred Hampton’s cause of death was two gunshot wounds to the head.
The State charged Hampton with first-degree murder and possession of a firearm by
certain persons. On August 28, 2017, Hampton moved for a competency determination. The circuit court ordered that he be evaluated to determine his fitness to proceed. In February
2018, the circuit court received a report from Dr. Lacey Willett Matthews at the Arkansas
State Hospital in which she opined that Hampton was unfit to proceed to trial. At a March
5, 2018 hearing, the circuit court found Hampton not fit to proceed and committed him to
the custody of the Arkansas State Hospital until he was restored to fitness. Hampton then
underwent restoration proceedings through an outpatient restoration program.
On September 14, 2018, an evaluation report by Dr. Julie Wood, a forensic
psychologist, was filed with the circuit court. Dr. Wood opined that Hampton “did not lack
the capacity to understand the proceedings against him and did not lack the capacity to assist
effectively in his own defense.” Hampton’s trial counsel asked the circuit court to delay ruling
on Hampton’s fitness until he could obtain an independent evaluation. Hampton was
evaluated by Dr. Raymond K. Molden, a forensic psychiatrist, on November 12, 2018. In a
report submitted on April 7, 2019, Dr. Molden opined that Hampton understood the
proceedings against him but lacked the capacity to effectively assist his attorney.
On August 12, 2019, the circuit court again held a hearing on Hampton’s fitness to
proceed. Hampton introduced Dr. Matthews’s forensic report. Additionally, Dr. Wood
testified about Hampton’s examination at the Southwest Arkansas Counseling and Mental
Health Center. Dr. Wood testified that Hampton is schizophrenic and has a long history of
schizophrenia. She acknowledged that Hampton had previously been found unfit to proceed
to trial. Although Dr. Wood was not provided with information on the medications he was
2 taking at the time of his evaluation, Hampton informed her that he was taking routine
medications in the morning and evening and that they were helping him.
Dr. Wood testified that she administered the Georgia Core Competency Test
(GCCT)—a fitness-to-proceed examination—to Hampton, and that he passed.1 She discussed
his restoration proceedings and acknowledged that the counselor who conducted those
proceedings felt that Hampton was unfit and would not become fit to proceed. Dr. Wood
testified that the counselor was not authorized or trained to make that call.
Dr. Wood explained what the GCCT involved and the questions she asked during
the GCCT. She testified that she evaluated whether Hampton had the rational capacity to
make decisions about his future and whether he understood the facts related to the
courtroom and to the crime. She testified that on the day of her evaluation, Hampton
behaved appropriately and communicated sufficiently. Dr. Wood stated that with patience,
he could testify on his own behalf.
On communication, Dr. Wood reported that she could understand Hampton 95
percent of the time. She also opined that his thought process was logical. He did not display
hallucinations, delusions, obsessions, compulsions, or phobias. He denied depression and
anxiety. Dr. Wood’s conclusion about Hampton’s thought process was based on her hour-
1 Hampton scored a 92 out of 100 on the exam administered by Dr. Wood. Any score above 70 is considered a passing score. Dr. Wood testified that the GCCT is the most commonly used fitness-to-proceed test in the state of Arkansas.
3 and-forty-five-minute interview with Hampton, during which he gave an entire history on
himself and answered her questions.
Dr. Wood opined that Hampton understood his plea options and the benefits and
consequences of a plea bargain. She based that opinion on his responses to questions on
whether he knew the meaning of guilty and not guilty, whether he knew that he could plead
not guilty despite his behavior, and whether he understood and could identify the benefits
and consequences of a plea bargain. Hampton told Dr. Wood that he would tell his lawyer
the truth of everything that happened on the date of the crime and was willing to work with
his attorney. Dr. Wood did not discuss specific defenses with Hampton because “[t]hat’s a
higher level understanding that we don’t expect our average inmate to understand.” Dr.
Wood testified that Hampton was capable, on the date of the evaluation, of making
reasonable choices about his defense. She opined that with proper medication, Hampton
was fit to proceed to trial.
Dr. Molden then testified about his November 2018 evaluation of Hampton. In
assessing Hampton’s fitness to proceed, Dr. Molden evaluated whether Hampton understood
the legal proceedings against him, both rationally and factually, and whether he had the
ability to effectively assist his attorney. Dr. Molden also administered the GCCT and
reported that Hampton passed with a score of 88 out of 100. Dr. Molden stated that
Hampton understood the proceedings against him.
Dr. Molden concluded, however, that Hampton was not fit to proceed because he
could not assist in his own defense. Specifically, Dr. Molden discussed Hampton’s long
4 history of schizophrenia and his opinion that little progress was made during restoration
proceedings. Dr. Molden believed that Hampton lacked the ability to effectively engage or to
disclose to his attorney pertinent facts, events, or his state of mind at the time of the crime.
Dr. Molden also testified about Hampton’s lack of depth or detail when answering questions
and believed that Hampton was unable to engage in a reasoned choice of legal strategies. Dr.
Molden opined that Hampton’s answers to non-case-related vignettes showed some
impairment in his reasoning ability to consider information that might be relevant to present
to his defense attorney. He opined that although Hampton could verbalize a choice, that
choice did not seem to have a rational understanding behind it. Dr. Molden testified that
during his two-hour interview with Hampton, he appeared apathetic, paranoid, guarded, and
not forthcoming. Dr. Molden believed Hampton’s fitness could be restored in another
setting with a change in medication.
Following Dr. Molden’s testimony, the State recalled Dr. Wood. She explained that
apathy occurs outside of schizophrenia or any mental illness. She opined that probably 90
percent of inmates develop a sense of apathy toward the legal system because of their past
experiences. She reiterated her belief that Hampton could effectively assist his attorney. In
an August 26, 2019 order, the circuit court found that Hampton was fit to proceed and
ordered him to trial.
A Bradley County Circuit Court jury found Hampton guilty of first-degree murder
and possession of a firearm by certain persons. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for
5 the murder conviction and ten years’ imprisonment for possession of a firearm by certain
persons, to be served consecutively. Hampton now brings this appeal.
II. Fitness to Proceed
For his sole point on appeal, Hampton argues that the circuit court erred in
determining that he was fit to proceed to trial because his schizophrenia prevented him from
effectively assisting in his own defense.
The conviction of an accused person while he or she is legally incompetent violates
due process. Cage v. State, 2017 Ark. 277, at 5, 528 S.W.3d 825, 828. This court has long
held that criminal defendants are presumed competent to stand trial and that they have the
burden of proving otherwise. Thessing v. State, 365 Ark. 384, 390, 230 S.W.3d 526, 532
(2006). This court has stated that the test for competency to stand trial is whether a
defendant has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree
of rational understanding and whether he has a rational, as well as a factual, understanding
of the proceedings against him. Id., 230 S.W.3d at 532.
The test for competency on appeal is whether substantial evidence supports the circuit
court’s finding. Cage, 2017 Ark. 277, at 6, 528 S.W.3d at 828. There is substantial evidence
if the evidence is forceful enough to compel reasonable minds to reach a conclusion one way
or the other and requires more than mere speculation or conjecture. Thessing, 365 Ark. at
390, 230 S.W.3d at 532. When determining whether there is substantial evidence, it is
permissible to consider only the testimony that supports a finding of competency. Id., 230
S.W.3d at 532.
6 We have stated that, following a circuit court’s ruling on competency to stand trial,
we will not attempt to weigh the evidence or pass on the credibility of witnesses when the
medical reports conflict with each other. Jones v. State, 317 Ark. 131, 136, 876 S.W.2d 262,
265 (1994). With dueling medical experts, we have explained that the trier of fact observes
the witnesses firsthand, sees their demeanor and responsiveness in answering questions, and
is in the best position to determine which is the more credible witness. Mauppin v. State, 314
Ark. 566, 569, 865 S.W.2d 270, 272 (1993).
Hampton argues that Dr. Molden’s opinion should have been given more weight than
Dr. Wood’s because his testimony was more thorough on Hampton’s ability to convey
information to his attorney and to rationally decide whether to plead guilty or go to trial.
We will not reweigh the credibility of these conflicting medical experts. Id., 865 S.W.2d at
272. Here, Dr. Wood provided detailed testimony on how she reached her conclusion that
Hampton could effectively assist his attorney, which included Hampton’s interview, his
performance on the GCCT, and her review of his extensive medical history. Dr. Wood’s
report and testimony provided substantial evidence to support the circuit court’s ruling. See
Cage, 2017 Ark. 277, at 6–7, 528 S.W.3d at 828. Thus, we hold that the circuit court did
not err in determining that Hampton was fit to stand trial, and we affirm Hampton’s
convictions and sentences.
III. Rule 4-3(i)
Because Hampton received a sentence of life imprisonment, this court, in compliance
with Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(i), has examined the record for all objections,
7 motions, and requests made by either party that were decided adversely to Hampton. No
prejudicial error has been found.
Affirmed.
Short Law Firm, by: Lee D. Short, for appellant.
Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Adam Jackson, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.