Judgment rendered December 17, 2025. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 922, La. C. Cr. P.
No. 56,506-KA
COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA
*****
STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee
versus
HERMANDUS DASHNSKI Appellant SEMIEN
Appealed from the Fifth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Richland, Louisiana Trial Court No. F-2020-223
Honorable Stephen Gayle Dean, Judge
LOUISIANA APPEALS & Counsel for Appellant WRIT SERVICE By: Sherry Watters
PENNY W. DOUCIERE Counsel for Appellee District Attorney
KENNETH D. WHEELER AMANDA M. WILKINS Assistant District Attorneys
Before PITMAN, STONE, and COX, JJ. COX, J.
This criminal appeal arises from the Fifth Judicial District Court,
Franklin Parish, Louisiana. Hermandus Semien was convicted of one count
of first degree murder (La. R.S. 14:30), one count of armed robbery (La.
R.S. 14:64), one count of theft of a motor vehicle valued at $5,000 or more
but less than $25,000 (La. R.S. 14:67.26), and one count of possession of a
firearm by a convicted felon (La. R.S. 14:95.1). Semien was sentenced to
life imprisonment without benefits for count one; 99 years for count two; 10
years for count three; and 20 years for count four. For the following
reasons, Semien’s convictions and sentences are affirmed.
FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
As gleaned from the record, the following facts regarding Semien’s
convictions are as follows:
On October 17, 2020, as Langston Yancey (“Yancey”) attempted to
close his store, Yancey’s Pharmacy, located in Rayville, Louisiana, a man,
later identified as Semien, held him at gunpoint, took his iPad and cellphone,
and forced him back into the store. Semien ordered Yancey to put several
drugs, including Percocet, OxyContin, Promethazine, Oxycodone, and other
narcotics into a black duffel bag. Semien then bound Yancey’s wrists and
ankles before he took the keys to Yancey’s truck and fled. Once Yancey
was able to free himself, he walked to the nursing home behind his store,
noticed his truck was parked next to another white truck with a Slemco sign
on it, and then called the police.1
1 The record indicates that Semien was inside Yancey’s vehicle at this time before he eventually fled the scene. During this time, Officer Marshall Waters (“Officer Waters”) and
reserve officer Charles Johnson (“Officer Johnson”), of the Mangham Police
Department, were on traffic patrol when Officer Waters was informed that a
suspect had fled on foot, following a robbery in Rayville. Several minutes
later, the officers observed a white Ford truck speeding, and Officer Waters
pursued and pulled the vehicle over. As Officer Waters exited his patrol
unit, the driver of the truck, later identified as Semien, leaned out of the
window and fired a single round that hit Officer Waters, who returned
fire. Officer Waters radioed dispatch that he had been shot and that Semien
fled the scene. Officer Waters later died from complications from the
gunshot wound.
Investigator Jackie Gilbert (“Inv. Gilbert”) of the Louisiana State
Police was contacted to assist in the matter. After learning of the robbery
and subsequent shooting, Franklin Parish deputies informed Inv. Gilbert that
Yancey’s stolen truck had been found in a ditch on Highway 562 in Fort
Necessity, Louisiana. Resident Ray Wollerson (“Wollerson”) informed
officers that he witnessed the truck being backed into a ditch and went to
assist the driver. When Wollerson approached the truck, he noticed that the
driver was dressed in a dark hoodie, gloves, and had on a black bandana that
covered most of his face. Wollerson noted that after the driver refused to
look at or acknowledge him when asked if assistance was needed, he left the
area and had his father contact the police because he believed the truck may
have been stolen.
Wollerson reported that he saw the driver exit the vehicle and run
toward an abandoned home. Officers patrolled the area and found and
arrested Semien in a wooded area near the ditch where the truck was 2 abandoned. Officers also recovered a pistol that had been dropped into a
pool of water Semien fell into when he fled, as well as a black duffle bag
with the narcotics stolen from Yancey’s Pharmacy, and a black backpack
that contained duct tape, clothes, and various tools. Semien was then
transported to Richland Parish Sheriff’s Office, where he provided a
recorded statement to officers.
During his interview, Semien confessed that he stole a truck from
Slemco Electric, drove it to Yancey’s Pharmacy, and stole narcotics from
Yancey because he knew the store and thought it would be an easy place to
rob. Semien admitted he stole Yancey’s truck and fled and that he shot
Officer Waters when he was pulled over for speeding. Semien indicated that
he did not intend to kill Officer Waters but just wanted to get away and fired
at his midsection because he thought Officer Waters had a vest on; however,
Semien also stated that he fired a shot because it “was either him or
me.” Semien confessed that he fled the scene, but eventually got lost,
attempted to turn around, and accidentally backed into a ditch, where he then
ran into the woods until he heard orders from officers to get down. Semien
admitted he continued to run, and when he fell into a small body of water, he
pushed his pistol into the mud before he was arrested.
On December 4, 2020, Semien was indicted by a grand jury on four
counts: (1) first degree murder of Officer Waters, in violation of La. R.S.
14:30; (2) armed robbery, in violation of La. R.S. 14:64; (3) theft of a motor
vehicle, in violation of La. R.S. 14:67.26; and (4) possession of a firearm as
a convicted felon, in violation of La. R.S. 14:95.1. The indictment was later
amended to reflect the value of the vehicle (valued at $5,000 or more but
less than $25,000) concerning count three. On February 5, 2021, the State 3 filed notice of intent to seek the death penalty for count one. On January 19,
2023, defense counsel filed a motion to appoint a sanity commission to
evaluate Semien’s competency to proceed to trial. On February 10, 2023,
the trial court appointed Dr. Jesse Lambert (“Dr. Lambert”) and Dr. Phillip
Scurria (“Dr. Scurria”) to the sanity commission to evaluate Semien.
Dr. Lambert determined that Semien was not competent to proceed to
trial, opining that Semien “appeared to suffer from impairment in rational
understanding secondary to a psychotic process,” and Semien’s “psychosis
has compromised [his] ability to rational[ly] understand the proceedings and
contemplate decisions rationally.” In contrast, Dr. Scurria determined
Semien was competent to stand trial, opining that Semien “has the ability to
assist [in] his defense and provide information to his attorney appropriately,”
and did not believe Semien required inpatient psychiatric hospitalization.
Due to conflicting opinions, the trial court appointed a third sanity doctor,
Dr. Jennifer Russell (“Dr. Russell”), who found that Semien was not
competent to proceed to trial.
On May 31, 2023, reports from each doctor were submitted to the trial
court in lieu of live testimony at the sanity hearing. On June 28, 2023, the
trial court ruled that Semien, at that time, was not competent to assist his
counsel or to proceed to trial. The trial court ordered Semien to receive
treatment under the custody of Eastern Louisiana Medical Mental Health
System (“ELMS”). Prior to Semien’s transfer, the State submitted an
incident report from Richland Parish Detention Center which documented
that on July 1, 2023, Semien stated, in part, that he “killed a cop before I will
do it again,” and in reference to Captain Waymon Shaw (“Cpt. Shaw”),
stated, “I ain’t afraid to kill his a***.” 4 On May 2, 2024, a second sanity hearing was held wherein the
following pertinent testimony was adduced:
First, Cpt. Shaw testified he was employed at Richland Parish
Detention Center, where he interacted with Semien weekly. Cpt. Shaw
stated that from his perspective, he did not observe any behavior or hear any
statements from Semien that would lead him to believe that Semien either
had a mental disorder or that he did not understand his own actions. Cpt.
Shaw noted that Semien could check out books from the library, fill out an
incident report following an altercation with another inmate, and check out
tablets or iPads, which Semien used to send text messages. On cross-
examination, Cpt. Shaw denied hearing any statements that Semien believed
his death would “enlighten the youth or create worldwide global change for
the youth.”
Next, Dr. E. John Roberts, III (“Dr. Roberts”), tendered as an expert
in the field of forensic psychiatry and general psychiatry, testified that
Semien received treatment at ELMS for about three months. Dr. Roberts
stated that during an initial evaluation, Semien did not exhibit behaviors that
indicated he had a mental illness and noted there was no evidence that
Semien had a diagnosable mental condition, intellectual disability, major
psychiatric diagnosis, neurocognitive impairment, or memory impairment.
Dr. Roberts further noted that Semien denied any auditory or visual
hallucinations and denied that he had any suicidal or homicidal ideations and
did not need any medications during that time. Dr. Roberts testified Semien
was able to provide his social, educational, employment, and medical history
on his own and could interact with staff and engage in a normal pattern of
behavior with other patients. Further, Dr. Roberts stated Semien presented 5 no indications of hyper-religiosity, which would have impeded his judgment,
and instead, noted Semien had fairly good judgment and had no difficulties
with impulse control.
Dr. Roberts testified that, based on Semien’s report generated from
biweekly and weekly staffing evaluations, Semien met the Bennett criteria2
for competency to assist his counsel and to proceed to trial. Specifically, Dr.
Roberts stated Semien could articulate the charges against him, that he
understood the consequences he faced if convicted, could distinguish
between a guilty plea and a non-guilty plea, and understood the range of
verdicts involved in his case.
On cross-examination, Dr. Roberts agreed that to be competent,
Semien needed both a factual and rational understanding of the charges
against him, which he believed was present in this case. He also agreed that
there was no indication Semien appeared to fake a mental illness but stated
that he engaged in symptom exaggeration. Dr. Roberts also acknowledged
that Semien was diagnosed with major depressive disorder with an episode
of severe psychosis when he was 11 years old and was admitted to
2 See, State v. Bennett, 345 So. 2d 1129 (La. 1977), in which the Louisiana Supreme Court provided that the proper considerations to determine whether a defendant is fully aware of the nature of the proceedings against him, include whether he: (1) understands the nature of the charge and can appreciate its seriousness; (2) understands what defenses are available; (3) can distinguish a guilty plea from a not guilty plea and understand the consequences of each; (4) has an awareness of his legal rights; and, (5) understands the range of possible verdicts and the consequences of conviction.
The Bennett court also provided the following factors for courts to consider when determining an accused’s ability to assist in his defense, including whether a defendant: (1) is able to recall and relate facts pertaining to his actions and whereabouts at certain times; (2) is able to assist counsel in locating and examining relevant witnesses; (3) is able to maintain a consistent defense; (4) is able to listen to the testimony of witnesses and inform his lawyer of any distortions or misstatements; (5) has the ability to make simple decisions in response to well explained alternatives; (6) is capable of testifying in his own defense if necessary to defense strategy; and, (7) is apt to deteriorate in his mental capacity under the stress of trial. 6 Brentwood with suicidal, homicidal, and auditory and visual hallucinations
in 2009; however, he also testified that because he did not diagnose Semien
at that time it was also possible that he was misdiagnosed depending on the
tests administered at that time.
On redirect, Dr. Roberts testified that a person’s religious beliefs,
including Semien’s, did not necessarily equate to irrational decision-making
or impede his ability to competently proceed to trial. Dr. Roberts opined
that in this case, there was nothing that led him to believe that Semien was
not competent to stand trial.
Next, Dr. Scurria, tendered as an expert in general psychiatry, testified
that he evaluated Semien on two different occasions and determined that
Semien met the Bennett criteria and was competent to assist counsel and
proceed to trial. Specifically, Dr. Scurria stated that he was aware of
Semien’s religious ties to the group known as the Five Percent Nation and
when discussing his beliefs, Semien tended to go off on tangents but
ultimately could be brought back to the original question. Dr. Scurria
testified that Semien’s beliefs did not render him irrational or unable to
assist his counsel, as Semien was able to recall facts of his case and could
understand the consequences of the charges against him. Dr. Scurria
testified that he did not find any evidence of psychosis and found that
Semien often rambled when speaking about his beliefs because the religion’s
doctrine is not recorded but passed along verbally. Dr. Roberts concluded
that these beliefs did not impinge on Semien’s rationality or understanding
of the legal proceedings.
On cross-examination, Dr. Scurria testified that Semien did not meet
the criteria for mania but admitted that Semien reported seeing “signs” and 7 auras from other people, that he believed he was anointed by God, and that
Semien reported he did not want to take a plea because he thought it would
be like working with Satan. However, Dr. Scurria noted that he believed
Semien simply likened the district attorney’s office to Satan because many
people believe that the government takes advantage of people. Dr. Scurria
did admit that he should have but did not ask further questions concerning
Semien’s belief that his death would “benefit the collective.” Dr. Scurria
maintained, however, that as of his last evaluation with Semien, he satisfied
the Bennett criteria and could assist counsel at trial.
Dr. Lambert, an expert in the field of clinical forensic psychology and
a medical psychologist, determined Semien was not competent to assist
counsel or proceed to trial. Dr. Lambert testified that he reviewed both Dr.
Scurria and Dr. Roberts’ reports as well as Semien’s other medical records
from ELMS and other treatment facilities where he had been treated
previously. Dr. Lambert testified that he administered a clinical interview
with Semien for about an hour and a half and then administered assessment
techniques to evaluate psychological-psychiatric functions and tests to
determine if Semien feigned his reported symptoms or cognitive
impairment. Dr. Lambert stated that he saw no indication that Semien was
malingering mental health, which is the intentional feigning or exaggeration
of psychological symptoms.
Dr. Lambert opined that Semien appeared to have “well-defined, very
specific, grandiose delusions in the form of hyper religiosity,” which led him
to believe that the most appropriate diagnosis for Semien would be
delusional disorder. Dr. Lambert stated this diagnosis was supported by
Semien’s conviction of his beliefs, which he believed entered the realm of 8 delusion, such as Semien’s belief that upon his death, “black youth will
automatically be treated fairly and they will be recognized[.]” Moreover,
Dr. Lambert stated that Semien conveyed atypical sensory experiences, in
which Semien claimed he played chess with Jesus, and alluded that he
(Semien) was the only person who could facilitate equality, which Dr.
Lambert characterized as a fixed delusion. Dr. Lambert opined that this
pattern of thinking prevents Semien from rationally understanding the nature
of his charges and other legal proceedings, such as plea negotiations.
On cross-examination, Dr. Lambert admitted that his original
interview with Semien was approximately one and a half hours, that he
interviewed Semien again a few days before the hearing, and that the
interview lasted 30 minutes. He also acknowledged that Semien was
evaluated and monitored for three months at ELMS. Dr. Lambert also
agreed that Semien can factually understand the nature of the charges against
him, can recall pertinent facts to his case, can assist counsel in locating and
examining relevant witnesses, and understands the difference between a
guilty and not guilty plea.
Dr. Lambert further acknowledged that Semien was found competent
to enter guilty pleas in at least two prior felony charges and still held the
same religious beliefs during those proceedings. Dr. Lambert also admitted
that Semien denied having any mental health symptoms, and that upon
testing, denied that Semien presented symptoms of schizophrenia or bipolar
disorder. On redirect, Dr. Lambert maintained that he did not believe
Semien could rationally make an autonomous decision to plead guilty or not
guilty.
9 Finally, Dr. Russell, an expert in clinical and forensic psychology,
testified that she also reviewed all previous medical records and reports in
addition to her own testing. Dr. Russell stated that after her evaluation, she
determined Semien suffered from a “delusional disorder of a mixed
type.” Dr. Russell stated that, in her opinion, Semien’s religious beliefs are
delusional because Semien referred to himself as a “seer” who can see the
future, which he believed was linked to his current legal situation. Dr.
Russell also noted that Semien has a fixed delusion with the number 4, and
that he looks for “signs” related to the number to confirm his actions. She
stated that not all delusions impact other areas of a person’s life so that their
functioning would not be impaired in moments unrelated to that delusion.
Dr. Russell stated that Semien’s rationale in determining whether he
should take a specific plea would become illogical, and he could not
rationally make a decision in this regard. On cross-examination, Dr. Russell
testified that Semien could, however, listen to facts, hear evidence, and
confer with counsel about those facts and evidence, but questioned his
ability to do so rationally.
Following the close of testimony, the trial court issued its written
ruling on May 8, 2024, in which it determined Semien was competent to
proceed to trial. The trial court explained, in part:
The Court has carefully reviewed the evidence presented at this competency hearing, which include[s] the reports and testimony of these experts, and has studied cases in which other courts have considered the competency of a defendant under Bennett criteria. The Court recognizes the defendant’s stated position regarding possible plea bargains may naturally cause concerns to defense counsel and may seem irrational to others. However, the fact remains that the defendant has clearly demonstrated his ability to make rational decisions in the past in connection with his defense in this case. He has admittedly demonstrated to each of the experts an understanding of the nature of the 10 proceedings and has in the Court’s opinion also demonstrated the ability to assist counsel to a large degree.
The fact that the defendant might supposedly not agree to consider any plea agreement at this stage of the proceedings does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that he would never consider a plea agreement, even if it means he will face the death penalty. The defendant’s statements in this regard do not establish in the Court’s mind that defendant is either delusional or unable to assist counsel to the extent required under Bennett criteria. Based on the testimony received by the Court from all four experts, the factors expressed by Dr. Lambert (defendant will be “recognized for who he is”; “black youth will be treated fairly automatically” should he be put to death; defendant “has no choice in these matters”; and “if he doesn’t obey, he will be damned to hell”) in reaching his diagnosis of delusional disorder are statements by the defendant that are all either within the tenets of the “5% Nation” religious beliefs or at the very least on the spectrum of those beliefs, according to the testimony received by the Court. The same can be said for the factors expressed by Dr. Russell (defendant believes be cannot be put to death or that he at least inferred that; he will overthrow Napoleonic law through this case; My message will have global reach and this case will help accomplish that; he is a seer and an elite in the “5%”; and the outcome of the case has been predetermined) as reasons for her diagnosis of delusional disorder. While these admittedly are considered to be extreme beliefs (if they are truly so held by defendant), they do not in the Court’s opinion automatically lead to or necessitate a finding by the Court that the defendant is delusional to the point that he is not competent to stand trial or assist counsel in his defense within the contemplation of Bennett or cases decided thereunder.
The defense presented no evidence to the Court that would show that defendant’s acceptance of and adherence to the recognized religious beliefs of the “5% Nation” as described in the testimony and reports of the four experts would prevent the defendant from assisting his counsel by making simple decisions to well-explained alternatives or cooperating with his counsel in considering and making a simple decision relating to a possible plea agreement in the future. As is abundantly clear, it is well within the defendant’s power to change his position regarding a possible plea agreement as the case progresses toward trial. Indeed, if the defendant were to be convicted as charged, the imposition of the death penalty by the jury is obviously not a foregone and inevitable conclusion, even should the defendant wish this to be so or somehow attempt to cajole or threaten the jury into imposing the death penalty.
11 In order to fulfill its obligation to reach its own conclusion regarding the competency of the defendant, the Court has carefully reviewed the testimony of the experts who testified, studied the experts’ reports admitted into the record, and made particular note of the detailed descriptions of the defendant’s behavior and level of cooperation during, and responses provided as part of his interviews with and testing by the experts and associated staff. The Court has also observed the defendant during the several court proceedings in which he has appeared before the Court, most especially the subject competency hearing. The defendant has demonstrated an appropriate presentation during his time in court, has appeared attentive overall, has apparently followed the in-court proceedings with interest and understanding, has listened to the various witnesses and consulted quietly with his counsel in- court on occasion. None of the defendant’s actions have evidenced that he does not understand the proceedings or is unable to assist his counsel in all aspects required under Bennett. Based on the totality of reported interactions by the defendant with the experts and associated staff, their recorded detailed observations and testimony, and the Court’s personal observations of the defendant the Court believes that the defendant has clearly demonstrated that he possesses the capacity to both understand the proceedings against him and assist in his defense within the requirements of the applicable caselaw and statutory framework.
On May 31, 2024, defense counsel filed a notice of intent to seek
writs concerning the trial court’s ruling as to competency. Following an
offer with the State to not seek the death penalty, defense counsel stipulated
on the record, in pertinent part, to the following: (1) to withdraw the writ
application to review the trial court’s ruling as to competency, (2) to not
enter a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, and that (3) issues concerning
Semien’s mental health would not be raised at trial, and no expert would be
called in that regard.
Jury trial began on September 23, 2024, and two days later, the jury
returned a unanimous guilty verdict on all counts. On October 4, 2024, the
trial court sentenced Semien, as to count one, to life imprisonment without
benefits. Semien returned to court on January 29, 2025, for sentencing on
12 the remaining convictions. The trial court reviewed Semien’s presentence
investigations report (“PSI”) and sentenced Semien to 99 years for count
two, 10 years at hard labor for count three, and 20 years without benefit of
parole for count four.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, Semien argues that the trial court erred in determining he
was competent to stand trial.
Specifically, Semien argues that Dr. Lambert and Dr. Russell testified
that he (Semien) was diagnosed with delusional disorder, which interfered
with his decision-making and rationality and was, therefore, not capable of
assisting counsel and could not proceed to trial. Semien highlights Dr.
Lambert’s testimony that his (Semien’s) fixed delusions concerning death
and martyrdom not only prevented him (Semien) from testifying and
considering plea offers but were also inconsistent with rational decision-
making during trial proceedings. Likewise, Dr. Russell also agreed that
these delusions prevented rational decision-making.
Although Dr. Scurria and Dr. Roberts determined that Semien’s
religious beliefs did not equate to irrational decision-making or diminish his
understanding of the nature of the proceedings, Semien argues that “this case
is not decided by the quandary of two experts finding [he] was competent
with the other two [experts] finding that he was not. This case is not decided
by the differences in the disciplines of the experts who evaluated [him].”
Instead, Semien argues that the trial court should have looked at the quality
of the evaluations and support for the conclusions of each expert. In this
case, Semien argues that Dr. Lambert and Dr. Russell, “after over a year of
conducting detailed evaluations” and “researching the [Five Percent] 13 Nation,” concluded that his delusions exceeded the group’s tenets and were
exacerbated by his delusional disorder, and their evaluations should have
been afforded greater weight.
Before addressing the crux of Semien’s arguments, this Court first
highlights that after the trial court issued its ruling on Semien’s competency,
defense counsel filed a notice of intent to seek writs. However, defense
counsel entered into a pretrial agreement with the State in which the State
agreed not to seek the death penalty, and defense counsel agreed to waive all
arguments of competency at trial and withdrew its notice of intent to seek
writs on the trial court’s ruling. In accordance with that agreement, the issue
of competency was not raised, and no expert witnesses testified on the
matter. In brief, Semien acknowledges this pretrial agreement and waiver
but argues in a footnote that the waiver as to competency was limited to the
trial court only, and he did not waive his objection or the right to appeal the
ruling. We disagree.
Generally, to preserve an issue for appellate review, a party must state
an objection contemporaneously with the occurrence of the alleged error, as
well as the grounds for the objection. State v. Mays, 54,251 (La. App. 2 Cir.
5/25/22), 338 So. 3d 1279, writ denied, 22-01000 (La. 10/4/22), 347 So. 3d
895. If no objection is made in the trial court, any error committed therein is
not preserved for appellate review. Id. While defense counsel in this case
lodged an objection to the trial court’s ruling, an agreement was nevertheless
entered into in which Semien agreed to waive issues related to competency
in exchange for a more favorable sentence, i.e., life imprisonment rather than
the death penalty.
14 The terms and stipulations of that agreement were put on the record as
follows:
The State and Defense have also reached the following agreements:
1. State and Defense will stipulate that the victim Marshall Waters was a Peace Officer as defined by R.S. 14:30 (B)(1) and he was working in the course and scope of his duties as a peace officer at the time he was killed.
2. State and Defense will stipulate to the authenticity and admissibility of the medical records of Rapides Medical Center/Dr. Samantha Zeringue.
3. In response to the State’s Motion for Discovery and Inspection, the defense has no expert witness or expert witnesses that it intends to call at the trial in this case.
4. The defense is withdrawing the writ for review of the trial court’s ruling on the issue of competency.
5. The defense has not entered a plea of Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity and understands and agrees that evidence of mental health or mental illness is not admissible at trial.
6. The defense will stipulate that the defendant has a prior felony conviction of simple burglary in 2014 and a prior conviction for aggravated second degree battery in 2016 in support of the possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
7. The defense will be ready for the trial on September 23, 2024, and you will remain counsel of record through the completion of this trial. If the information contained herein is correct, please confirm by signing below and returning to my office. (Emphasis added.)
There is no indication within the record that this agreement was predicated
upon a conditional waiver of the issue of competency being limited to the
trial court. Defense counsel used the issue of competency to negotiate the
agreement for the State to not seek the death penalty, and as part of trial
strategy, was satisfied that Semien was competent to proceed to trial once
the agreement was made.
15 The State did not repudiate its agreement not to seek the death
penalty; and, in turn, Semien, as a matter of policy, should not be permitted
to renege on his reciprocal promise to refrain from raising the issue of
competency once he obtained a more favorable outcome toward sentencing.
Once the agreement was entered into, any prior objections to the trial court’s
ruling were waived. It is well established that for purposes of appeal,
arguments are limited to those grounds raised at trial. State v. Tabb, 55,514
(La. App. 2 Cir. 4/10/24), 383 So. 3d 1066. Semien stipulated that the issue
of competency would not be raised at trial, which waived his prior objection
to the trial court’s ruling, and he lost the right to present the issue on appeal.
However, even if Semien had properly preserved this claim for
appeal, we find that this assignment of error still lacks merit.
The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause protects an
individual’s right not to proceed to trial while legally incompetent. State v.
Odenbaugh, 10-0268 (La. 12/6/11), 82 So. 3d 215, cert. denied, 568 U.S.
829, 133 S. Ct. 410, 184 L. Ed. 2d 51 (2012); State v. Taylor, 49,467 (La.
App. 2 Cir. 1/14/15), 161 So. 3d 963.
Louisiana C. Cr. P. art. 641 provides: “Mental incapacity to proceed
exists when, as a result of mental disease or defect, a defendant presently
lacks the capacity to understand the proceedings against him or to assist in
his defense.” Louisiana C. Cr. P. art. 643 provides: “The court shall order a
mental examination of the defendant when it has reasonable grounds to
doubt the defendant’s mental capacity to proceed.” Reasonable ground in
this context refers to information which, objectively considered, should
reasonably raise a doubt about the defendant’s competency and alert the
court to the possibility that the defendant can neither understand the 16 proceedings, appreciate the proceedings’ significance, nor rationally aid his
attorney in his defense. State v. Campbell, 06-0286 (La. 5/21/08), 983 So.
2d 810, cert. denied, 555 U.S. 1040, 129 S. Ct. 607, 172 L. Ed. 2d 471
(2008); State v. Crossley, 48,149 (La. App. 2 Cir. 6/26/13), 117 So. 3d 585,
writ denied, 13-1798 (La. 2/14/14), 132 So. 3d 410.
Louisiana law presumes a defendant’s sanity. La. R.S. 15:432; State
v. Holmes, 06-2988 (La. 12/2/08), 5 So. 3d 42, cert. denied, 558 U.S. 932,
130 S. Ct. 70, 175 L. Ed. 2d 233 (2009); State v. Anderson, 51,603 (La. App.
2 Cir. 9/27/17), 244 So. 3d 640, writ denied, 17-1913 (La. 6/1/18), 243 So.
3d 1062. Therefore, an accused bears the burden of proving by a
preponderance of the evidence that he lacks the capacity to stand trial. State
v. Holmes, supra; State v. Taylor, 49,467 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1/14/15), 161 So.
3d 963.
Although a trial court may receive expert medical testimony on the
issue of a defendant’s competency to proceed to trial, the ultimate decision
of capacity rests alone with the trial court. La. C. Cr. P. art. 647; State v.
Holmes, supra; State v. Anderson, supra. A reviewing court owes the trial
court’s determinations as to the defendant’s competency great weight, and
the trial court’s ruling thereon will not be disturbed on appeal absent an
abuse of discretion. State v. Anderson, 06-2987 (La. 9/9/08), 996 So. 2d
973, cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1165, 129 S. Ct. 1906, 173 L. Ed. 2d 1057
(2009).
The record in this case reflects that the trial court carefully considered
the issue of Semien’s capacity when the issue was raised. When the initial
sanity commission, comprising of Dr. Scurria and Dr. Lambert, arrived at
split opinions concerning Semien’s competency, the trial court appointed a 17 third expert on the matter, Dr. Russell, who found that Semien was not
competent to proceed to trial. In accordance with Dr. Lambert’s and Dr.
Scurria’s opinions, the trial court determined that Semien lacked the ability
to assist counsel and ordered Semien to receive treatment at ELMS.
Following that treatment, a second sanity hearing was held, in which Dr.
Roberts, Semien’s treating physician the entire time he was treated at ELMS,
disagreed with Dr. Lambert’s and Dr. Russell’s opinion that Semien’s
religious beliefs were delusion.
Dr. Roberts and Dr. Scurria agreed that Semien was able to recall
pertinent facts of his case, understood the charges against him, understood
the range of potential verdicts he could receive, could work with his attorney
to call witnesses, and could distinguish between a guilty plea and a not
guilty plea. In contrast, Dr. Lambert and Dr. Russell maintained the opinion
that Semien’s beliefs, namely that Semien’s opinions on martyrdom and a
willingness to accept the death penalty for a greater purpose, among other
sentiments, were indicative of irrational decision-making and interfered with
his ability to understand the court process. Both Dr. Lambert and Dr.
Russell diagnosed Semien with delusional disorder.
The trial court was presented with detailed testimony and evidence
from all four experts who evaluated Semien’s condition and behavior and
researched his religious beliefs. Each of the four experts was extensively
questioned about Semien’s competency, and each presented medical
conclusions based on their observations and testing. Moreover, the trial
court also observed Semien’s behavior and demeanor in court throughout the
entire process and determined that he was competent to assist counsel and
proceed to trial. 18 Although the experts in this case were divided concerning Semien’s
ability to competently proceed to trial and assist counsel, given the record,
we cannot say that the trial court’s ruling, which is afforded great weight,
was an abuse of its discretion.
Error Patent
Semien has also requested that this Court review the record for any
errors patent. In accordance with La. C. Cr. P. art. 920, all appeals are
reviewed for errors patent on the face of the record. Following our review,
no errors patent were found.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the trial court’s ruling, and Semien’s
convictions and sentences are affirmed.
AFFIRMED.