IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. COA22-932
Filed 19 December 2023
Scotland County, Nos. 18CRS051090, 18CRS052100-02
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v.
DESMOND JAKEEM BETHEA
Appeal by Defendant from judgments entered 28 March 2022 by Judge
Stephan R. Futrell in Scotland County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals
18 October 2023.
Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Special Deputy Attorney General Orlando L. Rodriguez, for the State-Appellee.
Sarah Holladay for Defendant-Appellant.
COLLINS, Judge.
Defendant Desmond Jakeem Bethea appeals from judgments entered upon
jury verdicts of guilty of three counts of attempted first-degree murder, one count of
assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury, two counts
of assault with a firearm on an officer, and one count of “carrying a concealed gun.”
Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it found him
competent to stand trial. We find no error. STATE V. BETHEA
Opinion of the Court
I. Background
On 26 May 2018, Corporal Benjamin Teasley and Officer Jeremy Rodriguez
with the Laurinburg Police Department responded to a call about an individual who
had been shot outside of a grocery store. The two officers arrived on scene and found
a man who had been shot in the arm. As the officers worked to secure the crime
scene, they watched Defendant walk up, cross under the police tape, and enter the
secured area. The officers asked Defendant if he saw the police tape and told him to
get out.
The officers moved towards Defendant, and Teasley began to arrest Defendant;
Defendant resisted and started a physical altercation with Teasley. During the
physical altercation, Defendant pulled a gun from his waistband and fired at Teasley,
narrowly missing Teasley’s ear. Teasley yelled “gun,” drew his service weapon, and
fired at Defendant. As Teasley fired at Defendant, Defendant pointed his gun at
Rodriguez, who had fallen during the altercation and was on the ground.
Defendant attempted to flee, but Teasley fired his weapon and struck
Defendant multiple times. Defendant was found incapacitated on the ground near
the crime scene with injuries to his head, jaw, large intestine, liver, stomach, and
right arm. Defendant was transported to the hospital for emergency surgery; it was
determined that he had suffered a traumatic brain injury.
Defendant was indicted on 19 August 2019 on three counts of attempted
first-degree murder; one count of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill
-2- STATE V. BETHEA
inflicting serious injury; two counts of assault with a deadly weapon on a public
officer; two counts of resisting, delaying, or obstructing a public officer; one count of
carrying a concealed gun; and one count of discharging a weapon into an occupied
dwelling. On 21 March 2022, Defendant’s counsel filed a Motion for Capacity
Hearing, alleging that Defendant was incompetent because he was “unable . . . to
assist in his defense in a rational or reasonable manner” due to his lack of memory of
the incident. Defendant’s counsel attached a report written by Dr. James Hilkey,
which concluded that Defendant “has no memory of the events” and thus “cannot
assist his attorney in explaining his mental state or provide relevant information in
offering a defense.”
A competency hearing was held that same day. Dr. Hilkey was tendered and
qualified as an expert in forensic psychology and testified that Defendant did not
remember the days leading up to the crime and did not remember anything from the
weeks directly following the crime. Dr. Hilkey also testified that Defendant had a
“rational understanding” of the legal proceedings against him. The trial court then
heard arguments from Defendant’s counsel and the State, and it determined that
Defendant was competent and therefore capable of standing trial.
Directly following the competency hearing, Defendant’s case proceeded to trial.
The jury convicted Defendant of all charges except for the one count of discharging a
weapon into an occupied dwelling, and the trial court sentenced Defendant.
Defendant gave proper oral notice of appeal in open court.
-3- STATE V. BETHEA
II. Discussion
Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by finding him
incompetent to stand trial because the “evidence showed he was unable to assist in
his defense due to a total lack of memory about the days surrounding the incident.”
A. Preservation
The State argues that “Defendant did not preserve the issue of competency for
appeal because he failed to object to the competency finding below.”
North Carolina Rule of Appellate Procedure 10 states, in relevant part:
In order to preserve an issue for appellate review, a party must have presented to the trial court a timely request, objection, or motion, stating the specific grounds for the ruling the party desired the court to make if the specific grounds were not apparent from the context. It is also necessary for the complaining party to obtain a ruling upon the party’s request, objection, or motion. . . .
N.C. R. App. P. 10(a)(1) (2022) (emphasis added).
Here, Defendant’s counsel filed a Motion for Capacity Hearing, alleging that
Defendant was not competent to stand trial. A competency hearing was held on 21
March 2022 and the trial court found that Defendant was competent to stand trial.
As Defendant presented to the trial court a timely motion and obtained a ruling upon
that motion, the issue of Defendant’s competency to stand trial is properly preserved
for our review.
B. Analysis
After hearing a motion on a defendant’s mental capacity, a trial court shall
-4- STATE V. BETHEA
issue an order containing “findings of fact to support its determination of the
defendant’s capacity to proceed.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1002(b1) (2022). The trial
court’s “findings of fact as to defendant’s mental capacity are conclusive on appeal if
supported by the evidence.” State v. Baker, 312 N.C. 34, 43, 320 S.E.2d 670, 677
(1984) (citations omitted). We review the trial court’s denial of a defendant’s motion
for incapacity for an abuse of discretion. State v. Flow, 384 N.C. 528, 547, 886 S.E.2d
71, 85 (2023). An abuse of discretion requires a showing that the trial court’s ruling
“is manifestly unsupported by reason or is so arbitrary that it could not have been
the result of a reasoned decision.” State v. Hennis, 323 N.C. 279, 285, 372 S.E.2d 523,
527 (1988) (citation omitted).
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1001(a) provides:
No person may be tried, convicted, sentenced, or punished for a crime when by reason of mental illness or defect he is unable to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him, to comprehend his own situation in reference to the proceedings, or to assist in his defense in a rational or reasonable manner. . . .
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1001(a) (2022). As to the requirement that a defendant be able
to assist in his defense, our Supreme Court has explained that, “[s]o long as a
defendant can confer with his or her attorney so that the attorney may interpose any
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. COA22-932
Filed 19 December 2023
Scotland County, Nos. 18CRS051090, 18CRS052100-02
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v.
DESMOND JAKEEM BETHEA
Appeal by Defendant from judgments entered 28 March 2022 by Judge
Stephan R. Futrell in Scotland County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals
18 October 2023.
Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Special Deputy Attorney General Orlando L. Rodriguez, for the State-Appellee.
Sarah Holladay for Defendant-Appellant.
COLLINS, Judge.
Defendant Desmond Jakeem Bethea appeals from judgments entered upon
jury verdicts of guilty of three counts of attempted first-degree murder, one count of
assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury, two counts
of assault with a firearm on an officer, and one count of “carrying a concealed gun.”
Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it found him
competent to stand trial. We find no error. STATE V. BETHEA
Opinion of the Court
I. Background
On 26 May 2018, Corporal Benjamin Teasley and Officer Jeremy Rodriguez
with the Laurinburg Police Department responded to a call about an individual who
had been shot outside of a grocery store. The two officers arrived on scene and found
a man who had been shot in the arm. As the officers worked to secure the crime
scene, they watched Defendant walk up, cross under the police tape, and enter the
secured area. The officers asked Defendant if he saw the police tape and told him to
get out.
The officers moved towards Defendant, and Teasley began to arrest Defendant;
Defendant resisted and started a physical altercation with Teasley. During the
physical altercation, Defendant pulled a gun from his waistband and fired at Teasley,
narrowly missing Teasley’s ear. Teasley yelled “gun,” drew his service weapon, and
fired at Defendant. As Teasley fired at Defendant, Defendant pointed his gun at
Rodriguez, who had fallen during the altercation and was on the ground.
Defendant attempted to flee, but Teasley fired his weapon and struck
Defendant multiple times. Defendant was found incapacitated on the ground near
the crime scene with injuries to his head, jaw, large intestine, liver, stomach, and
right arm. Defendant was transported to the hospital for emergency surgery; it was
determined that he had suffered a traumatic brain injury.
Defendant was indicted on 19 August 2019 on three counts of attempted
first-degree murder; one count of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill
-2- STATE V. BETHEA
inflicting serious injury; two counts of assault with a deadly weapon on a public
officer; two counts of resisting, delaying, or obstructing a public officer; one count of
carrying a concealed gun; and one count of discharging a weapon into an occupied
dwelling. On 21 March 2022, Defendant’s counsel filed a Motion for Capacity
Hearing, alleging that Defendant was incompetent because he was “unable . . . to
assist in his defense in a rational or reasonable manner” due to his lack of memory of
the incident. Defendant’s counsel attached a report written by Dr. James Hilkey,
which concluded that Defendant “has no memory of the events” and thus “cannot
assist his attorney in explaining his mental state or provide relevant information in
offering a defense.”
A competency hearing was held that same day. Dr. Hilkey was tendered and
qualified as an expert in forensic psychology and testified that Defendant did not
remember the days leading up to the crime and did not remember anything from the
weeks directly following the crime. Dr. Hilkey also testified that Defendant had a
“rational understanding” of the legal proceedings against him. The trial court then
heard arguments from Defendant’s counsel and the State, and it determined that
Defendant was competent and therefore capable of standing trial.
Directly following the competency hearing, Defendant’s case proceeded to trial.
The jury convicted Defendant of all charges except for the one count of discharging a
weapon into an occupied dwelling, and the trial court sentenced Defendant.
Defendant gave proper oral notice of appeal in open court.
-3- STATE V. BETHEA
II. Discussion
Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by finding him
incompetent to stand trial because the “evidence showed he was unable to assist in
his defense due to a total lack of memory about the days surrounding the incident.”
A. Preservation
The State argues that “Defendant did not preserve the issue of competency for
appeal because he failed to object to the competency finding below.”
North Carolina Rule of Appellate Procedure 10 states, in relevant part:
In order to preserve an issue for appellate review, a party must have presented to the trial court a timely request, objection, or motion, stating the specific grounds for the ruling the party desired the court to make if the specific grounds were not apparent from the context. It is also necessary for the complaining party to obtain a ruling upon the party’s request, objection, or motion. . . .
N.C. R. App. P. 10(a)(1) (2022) (emphasis added).
Here, Defendant’s counsel filed a Motion for Capacity Hearing, alleging that
Defendant was not competent to stand trial. A competency hearing was held on 21
March 2022 and the trial court found that Defendant was competent to stand trial.
As Defendant presented to the trial court a timely motion and obtained a ruling upon
that motion, the issue of Defendant’s competency to stand trial is properly preserved
for our review.
B. Analysis
After hearing a motion on a defendant’s mental capacity, a trial court shall
-4- STATE V. BETHEA
issue an order containing “findings of fact to support its determination of the
defendant’s capacity to proceed.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1002(b1) (2022). The trial
court’s “findings of fact as to defendant’s mental capacity are conclusive on appeal if
supported by the evidence.” State v. Baker, 312 N.C. 34, 43, 320 S.E.2d 670, 677
(1984) (citations omitted). We review the trial court’s denial of a defendant’s motion
for incapacity for an abuse of discretion. State v. Flow, 384 N.C. 528, 547, 886 S.E.2d
71, 85 (2023). An abuse of discretion requires a showing that the trial court’s ruling
“is manifestly unsupported by reason or is so arbitrary that it could not have been
the result of a reasoned decision.” State v. Hennis, 323 N.C. 279, 285, 372 S.E.2d 523,
527 (1988) (citation omitted).
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1001(a) provides:
No person may be tried, convicted, sentenced, or punished for a crime when by reason of mental illness or defect he is unable to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him, to comprehend his own situation in reference to the proceedings, or to assist in his defense in a rational or reasonable manner. . . .
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1001(a) (2022). As to the requirement that a defendant be able
to assist in his defense, our Supreme Court has explained that, “[s]o long as a
defendant can confer with his or her attorney so that the attorney may interpose any
available defenses for him or her, the defendant is able to assist his or her defense in
a rational manner.” State v. Shytle, 323 N.C. 684, 689, 374 S.E.2d 573, 575 (1989)
(considering and rejecting the defendant’s argument that the test is whether the
-5- STATE V. BETHEA
defendant could participate in her defense in a “meaningful way”). Additionally, our
Supreme Court has explained that even when a defendant’s ability to participate in
his defense is limited by amnesia, it does not per se render him incapable of standing
trial. See State v. Willard, 292 N.C. 567, 576-77, 234 S.E.2d 587, 593 (1977)
(“Obviously if [a] defendant is unable to recall the events of the crime, his available
defenses may be limited. We do not believe this fact alone renders him incompetent
to stand trial[.]”); see also State v. Avery, 315 N.C. 1, 11, 337 S.E.2d 786, 791 (1985)
(rejecting the defendant’s argument that “complete loss of memory of the events in
question” prevented defendant from “rationally and reasonably consult[ing] with his
defense counsel”).
Here, Defendant implicitly concedes that he was able to understand the nature
and object of the proceedings against him and able to comprehend his own situation
in reference to the proceedings. He argues only that his memory loss rendered him
unable to assist in his defense in a rational or reasonable manner and that the trial
court’s finding of fact as to his competency is unsupported by the evidence.
At the hearing, the trial court explained that it considered the evidence
presented, along with Willard and Avery, and further stated:
[T]he Court finds that the defendant is capable of assisting in his defense to the extent that he can remember events before and after and can stand trial in accordance with the standards in the North Carolina Constitution and General Statute 15A-1001(a), as amended.
The evidence presented at trial, which included Dr. Hilkey’s written report,
-6- STATE V. BETHEA
supports this challenged finding. Dr. Hilkey’s written report shows that: Defendant
retained memories of his childhood, including the years in elementary school, middle
school, and the three years of high school that he completed; Defendant recalled
playing and enjoying basketball; Defendant remembered beginning recreational use
of marijuana in high school; and Defendant recalled being “in good health until being
shot during the instant offenses.” Additionally, Defendant stated that he was able to
attend his grandmother’s wake in June 2021, which took place after the incident and
after he sustained his injuries.
This evidence supports the challenged finding that Defendant “can remember
events before and after.” Moreover, the record evidence shows that the trial court
carefully considered Dr. Hilkey’s written report and testimony, in light of Willard and
Avery, when making its determination that Defendant was competent to stand trial.
III. Conclusion
As the challenged finding of fact is supported by the evidence, it is conclusive
on appeal. Baker, 312 N.C. at 43, 320 S.E.2d at 677. Further, the record shows that
the trial court carefully considered the evidence before it, along with the controlling
case law. Accordingly, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in
determining that Defendant was mentally competent to stand trial. See Hennis, 323
N.C. at 285, 372 S.E.2d at 527.
NO ERROR.
Judges GORE and FLOOD concur.
-7-