Hi, i"m a licensed attorney and will be helping you with your question. I am very sorry for what you and your friend must be going through. I'm sure your are all extremely anxious and I want to help as much as i can but I need a little more information to help me answer your question. What are the charges pending against your friend? Has he seen any judge at all?
Please do not rate my response until we are done with our communications and you are satified with your answer. Until then, you can ask and answer questions here or in the question and answer format, if we switch from chat to that format.
Under what authority is your friend committed currently? If he has not seen a judge, he has certain rights that all defendants have. If they are holding him under a basic committment because he is a danger to himself or others, that is a public health laws issue until they bring him before a judge. If he is too ill for court, they can bring the judge to the hospital or do it by video conferencing-they reallly can! But a criminal case cannot commence against a defendant until he/she is arraigned and that means they are seen by a judge and told of their charges and entered a plea of guilty or, usually, not guilty.
I will do some research into the compentency regulations but I can tell you that how it normally works is that if a person is found unfit to stand trial, they are committed until a doctor finds them fit. This can take months or over a year in the hospital at times for the person to be well enough to understand enough to assist in his/her defense. But as to what the minimum or maximum wouldl be I will look into that because that sounds more like the amount of jail tie he or she may be looking at if they were convicted. Being convicted and found unfit are not the same.
I am switching to question and answer format to better communicate. I am not done answering your question so do not rate until you are satisfied. but continue to ask and answer me questions in the box below.
Here is his entire case, what do you think??
D-202-CR-201003304 - Saturday, August 18, 2012STATE OF NEW MEXICO (DA)v.RAYMOND YANKOSKYCASE DETAILCASE # XXXXX JUDGE FILING DATE COURTD-202-CR-201003304 XXXXX, XXXXX W. 07/14/2010 ALBUQUERQUE DistrictPARTIES TO THIS CASEPARTY TYPE PARTY DESCRIPTION PARTY # XXXXX NAMEBO Bond Company 1 AAAAA ALBUQUERQUE BAIL BONDSD Defendant 1 YANKOSKY RAYMONDATTORNEY: MARCHMAN JOSEPH VOYP Plaintiff 1 STATE OF NEW MEXICO (DA)ATTORNEY: FAVIELL JUDITH A.CRIMINAL CHARGE DETAILPARTYCOUNTSEQ # XXXXX CHARGE CLASSCHARGEDATECIT # XXXXX DISPOSITION DISP DATED 1 1 3 30-16-3(A) BURGLARY (DWELLINGHOUSE)F3 12/11/2009D 1 2 3 30-16-1 F3 LARCENY 2500-20000 F3 12/11/2009HEARINGS FOR THIS CASEHEARING DATE HEARING TIME HEARING TYPE HEARING JUDGE COURT COURT ROOM08/24/2012 8:30 AM CHANGE OF PLEA HEARING XXXXX, XXXXX W. ALBUQUERQUE Courtroom 41601/19/2011 9:00 AM GUILTY PLEA HEARING XXXXX, XXXXX W. ALBUQUERQUE10/14/2010 9:00 AM PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE XXXXX, XXXXX W. ALBUQUERQUE07/26/2010 9:00 AM ARRAIGNMENT Sheppard, Reed S. ALBUQUERQUEREGISTER OF ACTIONS ACTIVITYEVENT DATE EVENT DESCRIPTION EVENT RESULT PARTY TYPE PARTY # XXXXX08/09/2012 NTC: HEARING/CHANGE OFPLEASET 8/24/12 AT 8:30 AM. CR 10-3304; 10-5438; 10-589206/26/2012 WITHDRAWAL/ ENTRY/SUBSTITUTION OFCOUNSELNOTICE OF SUSBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL06/21/2012 ORD: COMPETENT D 1Order Finding Defendant Competent to Stand Trial06/20/2012 WITHDRAWNWithdrawal of Notice of issue of Defendant's Competence to Stand Trial02/21/2012 ORD: PSYCHIATRIC/DIAGNOSTIC EVALUATIONSTIPULATED ORDER FOR COMMITMENT TO THE NEW MEXICO BEHAVIORIAL HEALTH INSTITUTE AT LAS VEGAS FOR COMPETENCYTREATMENT AND TRANSPORT ORDERCR 10-5438 CR 10-589212/07/2011 WITHDRAWAL/ ENTRY/SUBSTITUTION OFCOUNSELBY (DEF) JOSEPH MARCHMAN DEMAND FOR SPEEDY TRIAL05/17/2011 SEALED DOCUMENTFILING SEALED PLEADING,05/13/2011 ORD: STAYINGCOMMITMENTFILING ORDER TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING DF'S COMPETENCY TO STAND TRIAL ON YANKOSKY03/11/2011 ORD: ORDERPage 2D-202-CR-201003304 - Saturday, August 18, 2012FILING ORDER QUASHING BENCH WARRANT PER JUDGE ROSS SANCHEZ ON ROMERO03/04/2011 ORD: STAYINGCOMMITMENTFILING NOTICE OF COMPETENCY ISSUE AND ORDER STAYING PROCEEDINGS FOR COMPETENCY DETERMINATION ON YANKOSKY; CASESTAYED PENDING DETERMINATION S TO DF'S COMPETENCY TO STAND TRIAL01/18/2011 NTC: OF INTENTFILING NOTICE OF INTENT TO CALL WITNESSES ON YANKOSKY01/18/2011 DISCLOSURE REQUESTFILING REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE ON YANKOSKY01/18/2011 CERTIFICATE OFDISCLOSURE OFINFORMATIONFILING CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION ON YANKOSKY01/18/2011 DEMAND FOR ALIBIFILING DEMAND FOR NOTICE OF INTENTION TO CLAIM ALIBI AND/OR ENTRAPMENT ON YANKOSKY01/18/2011 EXHIBIT DESIGNATION P 1FILING ENTRY OF APPEARANCE BY CARLOS F. PACHECO FOR THE STATE ON YANKOSKY11/29/2010 NTC: HEARING (CRIMINAL)FILING NTC: HEARING (CRIMINAL) SET FOR WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 19, 2011 AT 8:30 AM BEFORE THE HONORABLE CHARLES W. BROWN FOR:GUILTY PLEA11/15/2010 WITHDRAWAL/ ENTRY/SUBSTITUTION OFCOUNSELD 1FILING NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY BY VINCENT A MARTINEZ (DEF) ON YANKOSKY; FROM DECEMBER 15, 2010 - JANUARY 15, 201110/19/2010 NTC: PRE-TRIALCONFERENCEFILING NTC: PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE SET FOR THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2010 AT 1:30 PM BEFORE THE HONORABLE CHARLES W. BROWNFOR: PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE09/10/2010 NTC: HEARING (CRIMINAL)FILING NTC: HEARING (CRIMINAL) SET FOR THURSDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2010 AT 1:30 PM BEFORE THE HONORABLE CHARLES W. BROWN FOR:PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE09/02/2010 BOND POSTEDFILING APPEARANCE/APPEAL BOND ON YANKOSKY IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,500 SURETY POSTED BY AAAAA ALBUQUERQUE BAIL08/17/2010 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE D 1FILING ENTRY OF APPEARANCE, REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY, AND DEMAND FOR SPEEDY TRIAL BY VINCENT A MARTINEZ (DEF) ONYANKOSKY08/02/2010 ORD: CONDITIONS OFRELEASEFILING REDACTED ORDER SETTING CONDITIONS OF RELEASE ON YANKOSKY; BOND OF $7,500 C/S;08/02/2010 SEALED DOCUMENTFILING SEALED RECORD ON YANKOSKY07/26/2010 ORD: CONDITIONS OFRELEASEFILING REDACTED ORDER SETTING CONDITIONS OF RELEASE ON YANKOSKY;BOND OF $7,500 C/S;OR ATHORIZED THIRD PARTY RELEASE TOPRETRIAL SERVICES PETER BOYLES;07/26/2010 SEALED DOCUMENTFILING SEALED RECORD ON YANKOSKY07/16/2010 NTC: OF ARRAIGNMENTFILING NOTICE OF ARRAIGNMENT ON YANKOSKY, SET 07/26/2010 @ 8:30 BEFORE REED S SHEPPARD FOR CHARLES W. BROWN07/15/2010 SEALED DOCUMENTFILING SEALED PLEADING ON YANKOSKY07/15/2010 WAR: BENCH WARRANTCANCELED/ QUASHEDD 1FILING CANCELLATION OF WARRANT ISSUED 7/14/10 ON YANKOSKY; ARRESTED BY APD ON 7/14/1007/14/2010 SEALED DOCUMENTFILING SEALED DOCUMENT ON YANKOSKY07/14/2010 WAR: BENCH WARRANTISSUEDD 1ISSUING & FILING BENCH WARRANT ON YANKOSKY; $15,000 CASH/ SURETY CATEGORY 207/14/2010 ORD: PRESENTATIONORDERFILING INDICTMENT PRESENTATION ORDER; SEND NOTICE ON YANKOSKY, ISSUED BENCH WARRANT FOR $15,000 CASH/SURETY CATEGORY2Page 3D-202-CR-201003304 - Saturday, August 18, 201207/14/2010 SEALED DOCUMENTFILING SEALED DOCUMENT ON YANKOSKY07/14/2010 OPN: GRAND JURYINDICTMENTFILING GRAND JURY INDICTMENT ON YANKOSKY DA# XXXXX METRO # XXXXX 11266-10JUDGE ASSIGNMENT HISTORYASSIGNMENT DATE JUDGE NAME SEQ # XXXXX EVENT DESCRIPTION07/14/2010 XXXXX, XXXXX W. 1 INITIAL ASSIGNMENT
Hello again and thank you for that extensive information. It looks like from what you have provided this is what happened and is happening, in July 2010 the defendant was indicted by the grand jury and that means, officially charged with various crimes, all of which are not listed on the above document because as you can see, some have been sealed (see notation for 7/14/2010) BUT it states that bail was set at that time, meaning your friend appears to have been released on bond in September of 2010 and the underlying bench warrant was expunged. THen, it is hard to make out but something happened in November where the court was informed the defendant's attorney would not be available until after January 2011. I assume and it appears that the bail bond revoked the bond at some point here and bail was reinstated at $7,500 (I am trying to read a code, so bear with me). There was a conference January 18, 2011 where all the traditional legal notices were served and preserved for your friend by his lawyer. March 4, 2011 was the first time his commitment was brought into the case as a matter of record in that the record reflects that the judge ordered any commitment or decisions to be stayed (held off) until the ruling on his fitness. I see that on June 20, 2012 he was found FIT to proceed. His next court date is August 24, 2012. I have a feeling that if he is saying he has not been to court it is not that his case has not been proceeding it is a situation where his attorney has been waiving his appearance, meaning, the attorney and the court have proceeded without him because it was probably a lot easier for them to do a lot of those procedural things without transporting him. Now, if anything is to happen, like a plea or a trial, of course he has to be there. And, if he is not aware these things have been going on for two years, he needs to talk to his criminal defense lawyer. He should not listen to other people in the hospital or jail or doctors for legal advice. They already found him fit, according to your document, meaning he has enough capacity to understand who everyone is, who is his lawyer what they do, what is going on and able enough to assist in his defense. It is pretty hard to be found unfit, but as I stated, you only remain in limbo until you are found fit again, which occurs often when the person is stabilized to some degree. Whether or not he goes to court, he needs to demand to speak to his lawyer, call him/her and find out what's going on. It is unclear from the above document if the underlying charge is Larceny or criminal destruction of property, because the codes don't match, but if he is charged with burglary, he must also be charged with committing a felony within the dwelling he supposedly burgarlized. Larceny in the second degree is a felony with a significant jail possibility, but the penal code they list doesn't match Larceny, which is what they name in the above document. More info to come....
The New MExico Statute about incompetent defendants shows that your friend's doctor or whoever gave him that information is incorrect as the law clearly states; (I BOLDED AND UNDERLINED RELEVANT pORTIONS)
31-9-1.4. Determination of competency; incompetent defendants.
If at any time the district court determines that there is not a substantial probability that the defendant will become competent to proceed in a criminal case within a reasonable period of time not to exceed nine months from the date of the original finding of incompetency, the district court may:
A. hear the matter pursuant to Section 31-9-1.5 NMSA 1978 within three months if the defendant is charged with a felony that involves the infliction of great bodily harm on another person; a felony that involves the use of a firearm; aggravated arson, as provided in Section 30-17-6 NMSA 1978; criminal sexual penetration, as provided in Section 30-9-11 NMSA 1978; or criminal sexual contact of a minor, as provided in Section 30-9-13 NMSA 1978;
B. release the defendant from custody and dismiss with prejudice the charges against him; or
C. dismiss the criminal case without prejudice in the interest of justice. If the treatment supervisor has issued a report finding that the defendant satisfies the criteria for involuntary commitment contained in the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code [43-1-2 NMSA 1978], the department of health shall commence proceedings pursuant to Chapter 43, Article 1 NMSA 1978, and the court may order the defendant confined for a maximum of seven days to facilitate preparation and initiation of a petition pursuant to the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code. The district court may refer the defendant to the district attorney for possible initiation of proceedings under the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Cod
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).