STATE OF MISSOURI v. SHANNON ROANNE WARD (2026)

Shannon Roanne Ward (“Ward”) appeals the judgment (“Judgment”) of the Circuit Court of Greene County (“trial court”) convicting her of one count of possession of a controlled substance pursuant to section 579.015.¹ In one point on appeal, Ward challenges the trial court's denial of her motion for an additional mental competency evaluation. We conclude there is substantial evidence in the record to support the trial court's determination that Ward was mentally competent to stand trial and affirm the Judgment.

Factual Background and Procedural History

In September of 2022, the State charged Ward with one count of possession of a controlled substance – methamphetamine.

In April of 2023, forensic psychologist Christina Pietz, Ph.D. (“Dr. Pietz”) examined Ward and concluded that she was incompetent to stand trial by way of schizoaffective disorder, a mental disorder where a person exhibits symptoms of both schizophrenia and a mood disturbance. Dr. Pietz's May 6, 2023 report detailing her findings from the exam noted that Ward was unmedicated at that time for her psychiatric illness. She concluded that Ward's mental illness prevented her from understanding the charges against her and the legal processes, noting that Ward struggled with most questions about specific aspects of the legal system. Regarding her current charges, Ward told Dr. Pietz that she had been targeted by gang stalking, she was uncertain about the legal consequences if she were found guilty, and her answers to questions about a plea deal were tainted by delusional thinking. Dr. Pietz's report concluded that in her current state, Ward was unable to have meaningful conversations with her attorney about courses of action, or defense alternatives. The report concluded as follows:

Ward suffers from a schizoaffective disorder. She has no insight into her mental illness, and she is not willing to take medication to address her psychotic symptoms and mood fluctuations. As noted, her psychotic symptoms impede her ability to adequately participate in court proceedings and work with her attorney to develop defense strategies. Unless she is properly medicated, [ ] Ward's condition will continue to worsen, and she will not be competent to proceed.

The report noted that most people with Ward's condition respond favorably to medication over a reasonable course of time.

Neither the State nor defense counsel objected to Dr. Pietz's report, and on May 18, 2023, the trial court entered an order committing Ward to the custody of the Department of Mental Health (the “DMH”). The DMH was to determine the appropriate facility placement for Ward, and to report back in six months whether Ward had regained her fitness to stand trial, or whether there existed a substantial probability that Ward would regain her competency within the next six months.

On November 13, 2023, the DMH filed an unopposed Motion to Proceed stating that Ward's unfitness to proceed no longer endured, and Ward was able to understand the proceedings against her and assist in her own defense. In the Report of Competency Restoration Evaluation completed by Kathleen Smith, Ph.D., Dr. Smith noted that Ward had received services from the DMH's Forensic Mobile Team, which meant that she received their services in the Greene County jail rather than in the DMH. Dr. Smith believed that Ward had “improved likely due to sobriety, stability, and case management services[.]” Dr. Smith stated that Ward was not prescribed psychotropic medications, and her report did not offer a psychiatric diagnosis. Dr. Smith opined that the course of Ward's symptoms was difficult to discern and “may be further complicated by her history of substance misuse.” The report concluded that Ward had a rational understanding of the legal proceedings against her and an ability to assist meaningfully in her own defense. It also stated that she did not evidence paranoia, delusional ideation affecting her legal situation, or deficits in her ability to communicate.

Dr. Smith concluded as follows:

At the time of the examination, although [ ] Ward is not prescribed psychotropic medication, her mental health symptoms appeared to have subsided. Currently, she is not exhibiting symptoms of mental illness that would interfere with the ability to understand the legal proceedings against her or assist in her own defense. [ ] Ward demonstrated factual and rational understanding of her current legal situation and the ability to meaningfully assist in her defense. In conclusion, it is the opinion of the examiner that [ ] Ward has regained her competency to proceed at this time.

The trial court granted the motion to proceed on December 1, 2023, and the State's case against Ward resumed in the trial court.

On February 6, 2024, defense counsel filed another motion for a mental examination of Ward, stating that new information regarding her competency to proceed had been brought to defense counsel's attention. The trial court granted the motion on February 9, 2024.

Another certified forensic examiner with the DMH, Jason Lawrence, Ph.D., performed a third evaluation of Ward in March of 2024 and determined that she was mentally competent to stand trial. The evaluation was again performed while Ward was in the custody of the Greene County jail. Dr. Lawrence found that Ward was alert, broadly oriented, and that her thought processes were coherent, linear, and goal-directed. It stated that she did not evidence bizarre or delusional thoughts, auditory or visual hallucinations, her mood was overall euthymic and her affect was congruent with the topics of conversation. Regarding her competency to stand trial, the report stated as follows:

[ ] Ward exhibited sufficient factual understanding of her legal situation She accurately identified the charge against her as well as the alleged criminal behavior. She demonstrated an understanding of the roles of relevant court personnel and potential legal proceedings. She exhibited sufficient understanding of various plea options, including plea bargaining. She appeared to understand information provided by the examiner, and her capacity to learn and retain information appeared adequate.

[ ] Ward displayed sufficient rational understanding of her legal situation, as well as adequate capacity to assist in her own defense. She readily identified information relevant to her case and discussed this information in a rational manner. Her expectations regarding the role of her defense counsel as well as various legal strategies were reality-based. Although she expressed a variety of concerns regarding the evidence in her case and her treatment by the legal system, her reasoning did not appear based in symptoms of mental illness. She was able to work through hypothetical scenarios and described rational defense strategies. She maintained appropriate behavior throughout the clinical interview.

Dr. Smith's March 2024 evaluation concluded that Ward was not suffering from a mental disease or defect which would cause her to lack the capacity to understand the proceedings against her or to assist in her own defense. It stated that her mental status had remained stable for nine months and was expected to remain stable in the immediate future with maintained sobriety. Regarding her prior diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder in Dr. Pietz's May 2023 evaluation, Dr. Lawrence's March 2024 evaluation concluded that the schizoaffective disorder diagnosis came approximately one month into Ward's incarceration and therefore may have still been influenced by illegal substances. The report went on to state: “Chronic substance use can sometimes result in the effects of the substance lasting substantially longer than the period of acute intoxication. This may explain [ ] Ward's apparent improvement without the use of psychotropic medications; however, without further information it is presently not possible to be certain.”

At a pre-trial hearing on April 29, 2025, defense counsel told the trial court that she had retained Dr. Pietz, the forensic expert who had diagnosed Ward with schizoaffective disorder and found her not competent to proceed in May of 2023, to reexamine Ward. Ward, however, had refused to be seen or evaluated by Dr. Pietz again.

At that time, the State announced it had offered Ward a plea deal of credit for time served if Ward would enter an Alford ² plea to the class D felony of possession of a controlled substance. Ward refused to accept the offer, but the trial court gave her until May 1, 2025, to decide whether she wanted to take the offer or set her case for trial.

At the pretrial conference on May 1, 2025, Ward again refused to take the plea deal and insisted on setting her case for trial. Defense counsel reiterated to the trial court that she had concerns about Ward's competency to stand trial. However, defense counsel clarified, “I don't know if it's the ability or the willingness to assist in defense.” The following colloquy then ensued between the trial court and defense counsel:

[Trial court]: [Defense counsel], I have reviewed – I went back and looked at the DMH report. It did not show any sort of medication that [ ] Ward was to be on at the time that she was declared to be competent. The choices someone makes –I don't decide if they're good choices or bad choices. I let them make their own choice on issues like going to trial or not. The law does require that if I have reasonable cause to believe that the defendant lacks mental fitness to proceed, that I would intervene. [ ] Ward appears to be very articulate. I understand that she has a belief as to what happened or is happening. Do you wish to make any sort of additional record as to why you believe she's not able to assist in her defense at this time?

[Defense counsel]: Judge, I believe my conversations with her as well as input from her make me believe that she is unable and unwilling to assist in the defense of her case based on a lack of scientific and reasonable information that she is providing to me.

․.

[Trial court]: ․ Both of those reports [from March of 2024 and November of 2023] did find she was competent to proceed. I know the defense wanted to have another evaluation, and [ ] Ward made the choice not to participate in that.

Based upon what [defense counsel] has said here today, I understand that there might be some questions about the choices [ ] Ward is making, but it seems to me that they are choices [ ] Ward is making and do not rise to the levels under which I would be required to order a new mental examination. Furthermore, I find, from what [ ] Ward has said here, she would be opposed to any sort of additional mental evaluation. So I'm not going to—I know it wasn't expressly asked today, but I have let [ ] Ward explain a little more things so I could come to my own conclusion that I was in agreement with where those reports stand. So at this point we will leave the case set for trial next week.

Ward proceeded to a jury trial. The morning of trial, prior to voir dire, defense counsel stated that she “would like to make an oral motion to re-request a 552 evaluation and have that as a standing objection throughout these proceedings[.]” The trial court noted the objection but declined to order another mental evaluation stating, “it's my understanding [Ward] adamantly opposes any sort of additional mental evaluation and refused to cooperate with the doctor you tried to provide her.” The trial court stated it would rely on the prior evaluations from the DMH which found Ward mentally competent to proceed.

The trial court then noted that Ward was “trying to tell me there's a reason I should not be able to proceed today.” When the trial court asked Ward why she did not believe they should go forward with the trial, Ward stated:

[Ward]: Because there is more to the case than what's being said. The case has actually—from my understanding, has been taken out. There's more to the case. This is not the case. You guys are misleading me or the system that you guys have is based by the bioengineered. Now, the bioengineered is William Zipperman [ph]. Now, he's been using my bio, and my biogenetics has been used all through and through.

Ward continued with this train of thought until the trial court interrupted her. The trial court denied defense counsel's request for another mental competency evaluation, and the case proceeded to a jury trial. The jury found Ward guilty as charged of possessing a controlled substance, and the trial court sentenced her to two years’ imprisonment, giving her credit for time served. Ward appeals.

Standard of Review

The trial court's ruling on a defendant's competency is a factual determination that must be upheld unless there is no substantial evidence to support it. State v. Anderson, 79 S.W.3d 420, 433 (Mo. banc 2002); State v. Tilden, 988 S.W.2d 568, 576 (Mo. App. W.D.1999). The appellate court does not weigh the evidence but accepts as true all the evidence and reasonable inferences that tend to support the trial court's findings. Anderson, 79 S.W.3d at 433.

State v. McCurry-Bey, 298 S.W.3d 898, 901 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009).

Discussion

In her sole point on appeal, Ward claims that:

The trial court erred or plainly erred in denying defense counsel's motion for an additional competency evaluation because this ruling violated [ ] Ward's right to due process as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 10 of the Missouri Constitution ․ and her rights under [s]ection 552.020, in that counsel felt that based on conversations she had with [ ] Ward, there were additional concerns about [ ] Ward's competency to proceed since her previous evaluation.

We disagree.

Section 552.020.2 provides as follows:

Whenever any judge has reasonable cause to believe that the accused lacks mental fitness to proceed, the judge shall, upon his or her own motion or upon motion filed by the state or by or on behalf of the accused, by order of record, appoint one or more private psychiatrists or psychologists ․ to examine the accused[.]

In addition, with respect to competency to stand trial:

The standard for competence to stand trial is whether the defendant has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him. Section 552.020.3; Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 172, 95 S.Ct. 896, 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975); Edwards v. State, 200 S.W.3d 500, 519 (Mo. banc 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). The defendant is presumed competent to stand trial, and he bears the burden of showing that he is incompetent. Section 552.020.8; Anderson, 79 S.W.3d at 432-33.

McCurry-Bey, 298 S.W.3d at 901.

It is with these principles in mind that we examine Ward's claim. Ward claims that, despite her earlier evaluations finding her competent to stand trial, it is her competency at the time of trial that matters. Ward argues that she was incompetent at the time of trial and that the trial court was required to order a new evaluation to determine if circumstances had changed.

Ward is correct that “[t]he issue of competence is not waived once trial begins. Tilden, 988 S.W.2d at 577. ‘[A] court must confront and determine the issue at whatever stage of the trial it may arise.’ Id. (quoting State v. Clark, 546 S.W.2d 455, 468 (Mo.App.1976)).” Id. at 901. Our review of the record, however, reveals that the trial court did exactly that.

Thus, we agree with the State that based on this record the trial court's decision that Ward was competent to stand trial is supported by substantial evidence and the trial court properly evaluated Ward's competency throughout the entire proceeding of the case. Dr. Pietz's examination in April of 2023 and subsequent report from that examination in May of 2023 found that Ward suffered from schizoaffective disorder and was not competent to stand trial at that time. Ward was then taken into the custody of the DMH for approximately six months. Dr. Smith filed a report in November of 2023 stating that with sobriety, stability, and case management, Ward had regained her competence to stand trial.

Defense counsel filed a motion for another mental examination in February of 2024, and the trial court granted that motion. That competency evaluation produced a report by Dr. Lawrence in March of 2024, which concluded that Ward was able to understand the legal proceedings against her and assist her attorney in her own defense. While Ward was not medicated at that time – and never has been throughout this case because she continues to refuse psychotropic medications – Dr. Lawrence's evaluation found that she had been stable for nine months without medication, likely due to her stability and abstinence from illegal substances during her time in the Greene County jail.

The trial court granted defense counsel a continuance to allow additional time for defense counsel's own expert, Dr. Pietz, to evaluate Ward again. Ward, however, refused to submit to the evaluation. At the pre-trial conference, and multiple other times throughout the proceedings, the trial court had the opportunity to observe Ward personally and make its own conclusions about her mental competency. Based on its observations, the trial court found Ward “very articulate.”

As such, the trial court observed Ward personally on multiple occasions during the three years this case was pending and relied on two different reports from experts stating that Ward was mentally competent to proceed. Those facts distinguish this case from one such as McCurry-Bey, where the trial court ignored the reports from two experts and the defendant's history, all of which pointed to the defendant's incompetency to proceed. 298 S.W.3d at 903. Based on this record, discussed herein, the trial court had substantial evidence to support its finding that Ward was mentally competent to stand trial.

Ward's point is denied, and the trial court's Judgment is affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   All references to statutes are to RSMo 2016, unless otherwise indicated.

2.   North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37 (1970).

JENNIFER R. GROWCOCK, C.J. – OPINION AUTHOR

JEFFREY W. BATES, J. – CONCURS JACK A. L. GOODMAN, J. – CONCURS