STATE OF LOUISIANA v. TROY LEE NAQUIN (2025)

The defendant, Troy Lee Naquin, was charged by bill of information with sexual battery (count one), in violation of La. R.S. 14:43.1; and attempted third degree rape (count two), in violation of La. R.S. 14:27 and 14:43. He initially pled not guilty but later entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity.¹ Upon motion of the defendant, the trial court appointed a sanity commission to determine the defendant's competency to stand trial, and after a hearing, the defendant was found incompetent to proceed. The defendant was committed to the Eastern Louisiana Mental Health System (“ELMHS”) until the hospital providers opined that his competency to stand trial was restored.

Three years after his commitment, ELMHS informed the trial court that the defendant had the mental capacity to proceed as he understood the proceedings against him and could assist his attorney in his defense. Thereafter, the defendant was tried and found guilty as charged by a jury. The trial court sentenced the defendant to consecutive terms of seven years at hard labor without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence on count one and nine years at hard labor without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence on count two. The defendant now appeals, alleging the trial court erred in failing to hold a contradictory hearing to determine his competency to stand trial after previously finding him incompetent to stand trial. For the following reasons, we conditionally affirm the defendant's convictions and sentences and remand this matter with instructions for further proceedings.

FACTS

On January 18, 2018, D.M.,² a home health nurse, reported she had been sexually assaulted by the defendant, one of her longtime patients. The defendant received monthly injections of Haldol, and D.M. indicated he was properly medicated at the time of the incident. D.M. stated she was at the defendant's house on the date of the incident to conduct an assessment when he tried to kiss her. After she pushed him away and ran towards the door to leave, the defendant forcefully shoved her, grabbed her breasts, touched her vagina with his hands, attempted to perform oral sexual intercourse on her, and digitally penetrated her anus. The defendant subsequently unfastened his belt and unzipped his pants but then indicated “he was tired and that he was done.” D.M. reported the incident immediately thereafter, and her cell phone and various forms of identification were found at the defendant's residence shortly after midnight the next day.

DISCUSSION

In his sole assignment of error, the defendant asserts the trial court erred in failing to hold a contradictory hearing pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 649 to determine his competency to proceed to trial after previously determining he was incompetent. As such, he argues his convictions and sentences should be vacated and the case should be remanded for a contradictory hearing and judicial determination on the defendant's capacity to stand trial.

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. La. C.Cr.P. art. 641. The two-fold test for capacity to stand trial is whether the defendant: (1) understands the consequences of the proceedings, and (2) has the ability to assist in his defense by consultation with counsel. State v. Bridgewater, 2000-1529 (La. 1/15/02), 823 So. 2d 877, 892, cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1227, 123 S.Ct. 1266, 154 L.Ed.2d 1089 (2003); State v. Howard, 2018-0317 (La. App. 1st Cir. 9/21/18), 258 So. 3d 66, 78, writ denied, 2018-1650 (La. 5/6/19), 269 So. 3d 692. As a general matter, La. C.Cr.P. art. 642 allows “[t]he defendant's mental incapacity to proceed [to] be raised at any time by the defense, the district attorney, or the court.” State ex rel. Seals v. State, 2000-2738 (La. 10/25/02), 831 So. 2d 828, 833. The article additionally requires that “[w]hen the question of the defendant's mental incapacity to proceed is raised, there shall be no further steps in the criminal prosecution ․ until the defendant is found to have the mental capacity to proceed.” La. C.Cr.P. art. 642. When the trial court has a reasonable ground to doubt a defendant's mental capacity to proceed, the court must order a mental examination. La. C.Cr.P. art. 643.

Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 647 requires the issue of capacity to be determined by the court in a contradictory hearing, as follows:

The issue of the defendant's mental capacity to proceed shall be determined by the court in a contradictory hearing. The report of the sanity commission is admissible in evidence at the hearing, and members of the sanity commission may be called as witnesses by the court, the defense, or the district attorney. Regardless of who calls them as witnesses, the members of the commission are subject to cross-examination by the defense, by the district attorney, and by the court. Other evidence pertaining to the defendant's mental capacity to proceed may be introduced at the hearing by the defense and by the district attorney.

Questions regarding a defendant's capacity must be deemed by the trial court to be bona fide and in good faith before a court will consider if there are “reasonable grounds” to doubt capacity. Where there is a bona fide question raised regarding a defendant's capacity, the failure to observe procedures to protect a defendant's right not to be tried or convicted while incompetent to stand trial deprives him of his due process right to a fair trial. Seals, 831 So. 2d at 832-833. While a court may receive the aid of expert medical testimony on the issue of competency to proceed, the ultimate decision of capacity rests with the trial court. Bridgewater, 823 So. 2d at 892. The failure to resolve the issue of a defendant's capacity to proceed may result in nullification of the conviction and sentence under State v. Nomey, 613 So. 2d 157, 161-162 (La. 1993), or a nunc pro tunc hearing to determine competency retrospectively under State v. Snyder, 98-1078 (La. 4/14/99), 750 So. 2d 832, 854-855. Seals, 831 So. 2d at 833; State v. Jackson, 2016-1565 (La. App. 1st Cir. 10/12/17), 232 So. 3d 628, 636, writ denied, 2017-1944 (La. 5/25/18), 243 So. 3d 566.

The determination of whether a defendant has the present capacity to proceed, despite an earlier finding of incompetency, must be conducted in all respects like the original hearing which was had to determine the defendant's mental condition. State v. Gibson, 2008-0741 (La. 11/10/08), 993 So. 2d 1193, 1197 (per curiam); see La. C.Cr.P. art. 649(D). After a trial court determines a defendant is incompetent to proceed, the court's determination of present mental capacity to proceed shall be made in conformity with the provisions of La. C.Cr.P. arts. 646 and 647. La. C.Cr.P. art. 649(D); Gibson, 993 So. 2d at 1197. A stipulation to medical findings for the purposes of the defendant's release from the ELMHS under La. C.Cr.P. art. 649 does not amount to a judicial determination of the defendant's competency. A ruling from the trial court as to the defendant's competency to proceed must occur before any further steps can be taken in the proceedings. State v. Johnson, 49,848 (La. App. 2nd Cir. 5/20/15), 166 So. 3d 1170, 1174.

In this case, the defense filed a motion for the appointment of a sanity commission, which was granted by the trial court in open court on September 3, 2019. On September 10, 2019, the trial court signed an order which, among other things, ordered that the members of the sanity commission submit their findings regarding the defendant's capacity to understand the proceedings against him or to assist in his defense. The physicians appointed to the sanity commission, Drs. Mary L. Eschete and Rafael F. Salcedo, filed their reports on October 10, 2019, and January 17, 2020, respectively. Dr. Eschete concluded the defendant did not have the mental capacity to proceed insomuch as he was unable to assist his attorney due to his mental illness. Dr. Salcedo stated his examination suggested the defendant was suffering from schizophrenia but found he was “exceptionally well stabilized” on his medication. Accordingly, Dr. Salcedo's report recommended the defendant “be found competent to proceed to trial.” Due to the differing opinions of the physicians, the trial court appointed Dr. Joshua Sanderson to the sanity commission a sanity hearing on February 20, 2020, and signed an order in conformity therewith. Dr. Sanderson's report was filed on July 7, 2020, and included diagnoses of schizophrenia as well as feigning and/or exaggerating mental illness. Dr. Sanderson opined the defendant “chose not to demonstrate a rational and factual understanding of the nature of the proceedings against him and chose not to display an ability to assist his attorney in his defense [due to] a volitional unwillingness to participate rather than the product of an active mental illness.”

The trial court held a competency hearing on August 8, 2022. With the agreement of the State and defense counsel, the trial court found the defendant was incompetent to proceed to trial and committed him to the ELMHS. In a letter dated July 10, 2023, ELMHS Assistant Clinical Director F.J. Bordenave, M.D. and Chief Executive Officer/Superintendent Laura Beth Lott ³ advised that the defendant “ha[d] the mental capacity to proceed as he now understands the proceedings against him and can assist his attorney in the defense” and that they were therefore “discharging Troy Naquin and returning him to the custody of the Sheriff of Terrebonne Parish immediately.” The assistant clinical director and superintendent attached the defendant's medical records from the ELMHS and provided the name of the treating psychiatrist should his presence at the competency hearing be required.

Two weeks later, on July 25, 2023, the trial court issued the following order:

The Court having been informed by the Superintendent of the Eastern Louisiana Mental Health System at Jackson, Louisiana that the above named defendant, TROY NAQUIN, is presently able to understand the proceedings against him and to assist in his defense and can be returned to this Court for further proceedings;

IT IS ORDERED that a competency hearing be held on the 8 day of August, 2023 ․ in the above entitled matter.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Sheriff of Terrebonne Parish transport the defendant, TROY NAQUIN, to the competency hearing scheduled above or report to this Court by such date and time to show cause why this order was not carried out in full.

During the August 8, 2023 proceeding, the following colloquy ensued after the case was called:

THE COURT:

And what are we doing?

MS. BECNEL [DEFENSE COUNSEL]:

This is just for new dates.

THE COURT:

Does he need to come here?

MS. BECNEL:

No, Your Honor.

THE COURT:

Okay. Stop.

What are we doing with him?

MS. BECNEL:

Judge, he was found competent. He just needs new dates.

THE COURT:

Okay.

You're going to get new dates for your court hearings. Okay?

Okay.

The hearing concluded after the court dates were provided. There are no minute entries or documents in the record indicating an actual competency hearing was held or that the trial court made a judicial finding regarding the defendant's competency to proceed to trial or to assist his attorney. However, the matter proceeded to trial by jury, and the defendant was found guilty as charged.

On appeal, the defendant contends the trial court's failure to conduct a contradictory hearing and make a judicial determination as to his competency before proceeding to trial, after he had previously been found incompetent to proceed, was error such that the convictions and sentences obtained are invalid and should be vacated.

While acknowledging the record fails to show the trial court made a judicial determination as to competency, the State asks this court to affirm or, at least, to conditionally affirm the defendant's convictions. The State primarily argues the parties’ appearance at the hearing on August 8, 2023, was sufficient to comply with the requirements under La. C.Cr.P. art. 649 for two reasons. First, the State points out the ELMHS had determined the defendant's competency was restored; the State argues because defense counsel was aware of the ELMHS’ recommendation and “apparently concurred” with the finding, the trial court's failure to make a judicial determination was harmless. Alternatively, the State suggests this court order a retroactive inquiry into the defendant's competency and remand the matter for a nunc pro tunc hearing.

We first reject the State's contention that the hearing on August 8, 2023, constituted a contradictory hearing within the meaning of La. C.Cr.P. art. 649. The code articles and jurisprudence clearly specify the trial court must make a judicial determination as to the defendant's competency at a contradictory hearing. See La. C.Cr.P. arts. 647 and 649; Gibson, 993 So. 2d at 1197; Johnson, 166 So. 3d at 1174. A stipulation to medical findings for the purposes of the defendant's release from the ELMHS under La. C.Cr.P. art. 649 does not amount to a judicial determination of the defendant's competency. Johnson, 166 So. 3d at 1174.

As a result, we must determine whether a retroactive inquiry into the defendant's competency should be ordered. In certain instances, a nunc pro tunc hearing on the issue of competency is appropriate “if a meaningful inquiry into the defendant's competency” may still be had. In such cases, the trial court is again vested with the discretion of making this decision as it “is in the best position” to do so. This determination must be decided on a case-by-case basis. The State bears the burden in the nunc pro tunc hearing to provide sufficient evidence for the court to make a rational decision. Seals, 831 So. 2d at 833; Jackson, 232 So. 3d at 635-636. In this case, none of the members of the sanity commission testified at the competency hearing, and the defendant's treating psychiatrist at ELMHS was never subpoenaed to testify regarding his opinion that the defendant's competency had been restored. Further, the trial court was afforded the opportunity to observe the defendant's demeanor and his interaction with his attorney – before, during, and after trial. We therefore find a meaningful inquiry into the defendant's competency may still be had.

Because there is no indication in the record that the trial court held a contradictory hearing following its receipt of the ELMHS’ letter in the record to determine whether the defendant presently has the mental capacity to proceed, we conditionally affirm the defendant's convictions and remand this matter to the trial court for the purpose of determining whether a nunc pro tunc competency hearing may be possible. See Jackson, 232 So. 3d at 636. If the trial court believes it is possible to retroactively determine the defendant's competency at the time of the trial, the trial court is directed to hold an evidentiary and contradictory hearing and make a competency ruling in accordance with La. C.Cr.P. art. 647. If the defendant is found to have been competent, no new trial is required. If the defendant is found to have been incompetent at the time of trial, or if the inquiry into competency is found to be impossible, he is entitled to a new trial. The defendant's right to appeal an adverse ruling is reserved. See Jackson, 232 So. 3d at 636; State v. Mathews, 2000-2115 (La. App. 1st Cir. 9/28/01), 809 So. 2d 1002, 1016, writs denied, 2001-2873 (La. 9/13/02), 824 So. 2d 1191 and 2001-2907 (La. 10/14/02), 827 So. 2d 412.

PATENT ERROR

Pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 920(2), this court routinely conducts a review of all appeals for error discoverable by mere inspection of the pleadings and proceedings and without inspection of the evidence. State v. Anthony, 2023-0117 (La. App. 1st Cir. 11/3/23), 378 So. 3d 766, 775, writ denied, 2024-00027 (La. 5/21/24), 385 So. 3d 242. After a careful review of the record, we have found one patent error.

The transcript reflects after the trial court imposed the defendant's sentences, it advised the defendant had “two years to file post-conviction relief[.]” The prescriptive period for filing an application for post-conviction relief is two years after the judgment of convictions and sentences become final under the provisions of La. C.Cr.P. arts. 914 or 922. See La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(A); State v. LeBoeuf, 2006-0153 (La. App. 1st Cir. 9/15/06), 943 So. 2d 1134, 1142, writ denied, 2006-2621 (La. 8/15/07), 961 So. 2d 1158. Nevertheless, the trial court's failure to correctly advise the defendant of the prescriptive period has no bearing on the sentences and is not grounds to reverse the sentences or remand for resentencing. Out of an abundance of caution and in the interest of judicial economy, we advise the defendant La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 generally provides that no application for post-conviction relief, including applications which seek an out-of-time appeal, shall be considered if filed more than two years after the judgment of conviction and sentence have become final under the provisions of La. C.Cr.P. arts. 914 or 922. LeBoeuf, 943 So. 2d at 1142-1143.

Accordingly, we conditionally affirm the defendant's convictions and sentences. We remand this case to the trial court for the sole purpose of determining whether a retroactive determination of competency is possible and, if so, to conduct such an contradictory and evidentiary hearing. If the trial court concludes the defendant was competent, no new trial is required. If the trial court finds a meaningful inquiry cannot be had, or if it determines after the hearing that the defendant was not competent at the time of his trial, the defendant is entitled to a new trial. See Jackson, 232 So. 3d at 636; Mathews, 809 So. 2d at 1016.

CONCLUSION

For the above and foregoing reasons, the defendant's convictions and sentence are conditionally affirmed. This matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with these instructions.

CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES CONDITIONALLY AFFIRMED; REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

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. La. Code Crim. P. art. 641. When the question of the defendant's mental incapacity to proceed is raised, there shall be no further steps in the criminal prosecution, except the institution of prosecution, until the defendant is found to have the mental capacity to proceed. La. Code Crim. P. art. 642. Where there is a bona fide question raised regarding a defendant's capacity, the failure to observe procedures to protect a defendant's right not to be tried or convicted while incompetent to stand trial deprives him of his due process right to a fair trial. State v. Jackson, 2016-1565 (La. App. 1st Cir. 10/12/17), 232 So.3d 628, 636, writ denied, 2017-1944 (La. 5/25/18), 243 So.3d 566.

In the instant case, after the defendant's capacity to proceed was raised, the trial court appointed a sanity commission composed of two doctors who filed reports. One doctor opined the defendant did not have the mental capacity to proceed insomuch as he was unable to assist his attorney because of his mental illness. The other doctor determined the defendant was suffering from schizophrenia but found he was “exceptionally well stabilized” on his medication and recommended the defendant “be found competent to proceed to trial.” Because of the divergent opinions, the trial court appointed a third doctor who submitted a report in which he diagnosed the defendant with schizophrenia but concluded the defendant was feigning and/or exaggerating mental illness and was competent to proceed to trial

Following a competency hearing, the trial court found the defendant was incompetent to proceed to trial and committed him to the Eastern Louisiana Mental Health System (“ELMHS”). Almost a year after the defendant was committed to the ELMHS, the ELMHS Assistant Clinical Director F.J. Bordenave, M.D. and Chief Executive Officer/Superintendent Laura Beth Lott advised via letter to the trial court that the defendant presently had the mental capacity to proceed because he understood the proceedings against him and could assist his attorney in the defense. Two weeks later, on its own motion, the trial court issued an order scheduling a competency hearing for August 8, 2023. On August 8, 2023, counsel for the state and defense appeared in court, but the defendant was not transported for the hearing. Furthermore, the record does not reflect that an actual competency hearing took place or that the trial court made a judicial finding regarding the defendant's competency to proceed to trial and to assist his attorney. Instead, the record reflects that the parties were only provided with new dates.

Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 649, provides in pertinent part:

At any time after a defendant's commitment, if either the superintendent of the mental institution or the administrator of outreach forensic services reports to the committing court that the defendant presently has the mental capacity to proceed, the defendant, if hospitalized, shall be discharged from the mental institution and released to the custody of the sheriff of the parish from which the defendant was committed, and the court shall hold a contradictory hearing within thirty days on that issue.

(Emphasis added).

It is clear from the record that the defendant was deprived of his right to have a contradictory hearing to determine his competency as provided by La. Code Crim. P. art. 649 before he was tried and convicted, and therefore, he was likewise deprived of his due process right to a fair trial. Because the trial court failed to hold a contradictory hearing to determine whether the defendant's competency had been restored following the defendant's release from the ELMHS, the last pronouncement of the trial court with respect to the defendant's competency was that the defendant did not have the mental capacity to proceed to trial. Therefore, the defendant, a person declared judicially incompetent, was tried and convicted of sexual battery and attempted third degree rape, both serious felonies when the law mandated that no further steps in the criminal prosecution should have taken place until the trial court made a subsequent determination as to whether the defendant had the competency to proceed to trial. See La. Code Crim. P. arts. 642 and 649.

The majority finds that a meaningful inquiry into the defendant's competency may still be had and has conditionally affirmed the defendant's convictions and sentences and remanded this matter to the trial court for the sole purpose of determining whether a retroactive determination of the defendant's competency is possible. Although I recognize that the procedure used by the majority has been the jurisprudential remedy implemented by the courts, see State v. O'Brien, 2014-0899 (La. App. 1st Cir. 12/23/14), 168 So.3d 627, 633; State v. Robinson, 2010-0924 (La. 12/17/10), 50 So.3d 156, 157, I find that this procedure does not comport with the defendant's due process right to a fair trial. A post-trial determination as to whether the defendant had the capacity to stand trial does not negate the fact that a person who was declared judicially incompetent to proceed was tried and convicted of serious felonies. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Our review of the minute entry showing that the defendant pled not guilty by reason of insanity does not indicate that this plea was entered in conformity with La. C.Cr.P. art. 561. After reading the bill of information at the start of trial, the clerk informed the jury that the defendant pled not guilty to the charges but did not inform the jury of an insanity plea. Further, the trial court did not give any jury instructions on the issue of insanity nor did it include a possible verdict of “not guilty by reason of insanity” on the verdict form. Defense counsel did not object to the trial court's failure to inform the jury of the defendant's plea of not guilty by reason of insanity nor did defense counsel object to the verdict form. Instead, the defendant presented a straightforward “not guilty” defense. Accordingly, the defendant is precluded from raising this issue as an assignment of error on appeal. See La. C.Cr.P. arts. 801(C) and 841.

2.   The initials of the victim are used herein to protect her identity. See La. R.S. 46:1844(W).

3.   The Assistant Chief Executive Officer, Brandi Castiglione, signed the letter on behalf of Ms. Lott.

MILLER, J.

Fields, J. dissents with reasons.