State of Louisiana Versus Bunnak Landon

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 24-K-446

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

BUNNAK LANDON COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF LOUISIANA

November 19, 2024

Linda Wiseman
First Deputy Clerk

IN RE BUNNAK LANDON

APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE NANCY A. MILLER,
DIVISION "I", NUMBER 23-2009

Panel composed of Judges Marc E. Johnson,
Scott U. Schlegel, and Timothy S. Marcel

WRIT DENIED

Relator/defendant, Bunnak Landon, seeks supervisory review of the trial
court’s ruling finding her competent to proceed to trial. For the reasons that follow,
we deny this writ application.

Defendant is charged by bill of indictment issued by a Jefferson Parish Grand
Jury on August 17, 2023 with the first-degree murder of a juvenile born on January
30, 2017 in violation of La. R.S. 14:30 (count 1), obstruction of justice by removing
the victim’s body from the crime scene in violation of La. R.S. 14:130.1 (count 2),
and obstruction of justice by removing a cell phone from the crime scene in violation
of La. R.S. 14:130.1 (count 3).

The trial court conducted a competency hearing on May 22, 2024. Presented at
this hearing was the testimony of three examining physicians as well as their
respective reports of defendant’s competency to proceed to trial. Testifying as
members of the court-appointed sanity commission were Dr. John Roberts and Dr.
Jessica Boudreaux. Additionally, the defense presented testimony from Dr. Sarah
DeLand.

On May 30, 2024, the trial court issued its written ruling finding that the
defendant was incompetent to proceed. In written reasons issued with its ruling, the
trial judge found that defendant possessed the capacity to understand the proceedings.
However, the trial court noted that two of the examining physicians disagreed
concerning defendant’s ability to adequately assist counsel. Also noted by the trial
court was Dr. DeLand’s finding that defendant exhibited symptoms associated with
depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, which affected her ability to

24-K-446 1

communicate information in a concise manner. Dr. DeLand opined this condition
impaired defendant’s ability to effectively assist counsel.

Based on recommendations of the examining physicians, the trial court ordered
defendant to undergo a more intensive evaluation at the Eastern Louisiana Mental
Health System (ELMHS). The trial court further ordered that defendant undergo an
immediate jail-based psychiatric evaluation and treatment related to possible
depression and post-traumatic stress disorder while awaiting admission to ELMHS.
Additionally, the trial court ordered the sanity commission physicians, Dr. Roberts
and Dr. Boudreaux, to conduct an updated competency examination and issue an
updated report within sixty days of signing of the order.

Dr. Roberts and Dr. Boudreaux re-evaluated defendant and submitted their
updated competency report within sixty days of the trial court’s May 30, 2024 order.
Following issuance of the updated sanity commission report, a second competency
hearing commenced on July 31, 2024. Prior to this hearing, defense counsel filed a
motion for continuance on grounds that their independent expert, Dr. DeLand had not
re-evaluated defendant and was unavailable to testify at the hearing. The motion for
continuance was denied. In the second competency hearing, the trial court received
evidence from Dr. Roberts, Dr. Boudreaux, as well as the psychiatrist treating
defendant at the Jefferson Parish Correctional Center, Dr. William Lo. At the close
of this second hearing, the trial court found defendant competent to proceed to trial
and vacated its previous order to transfer defendant to ELMHS.

On August 23, 2024, defense counsel filed a timely Notice of Intent to Seek
Supervisory Review and Request for Stay of Proceedings DM-031. The trial court
granted the notice of intent but denied the request for a stay. Afterward, on that same
day, defense counsel filed with this Court a Motion for Emergency Stay of All
Proceedings. We granted the motion, ordering the stay of all lower court proceedings
pending a decision on the supervisory writ application regarding defendant’s
competence. State v. Landon, 24-KM-394 (La. App. 5 Cir. 8/26/24) (JJ. Marcel,
Johnson, Schlegel). On September 24, 2024, defense counsel filed the instant writ
application.

In this writ application, defense counsel presents assignments of error arising
from the trial court’s order for a full competency re-evaluation, the setting of a
contradictory hearing on defendant’s competency sua sponte, and denial of
defendant’s motion for continuance of that contradictory hearing. Defense counsel
specifically assigns as error the trial court’s order setting the hearing on its own
motion, without any motion from the State or defense which articulates a change in
defendant’s circumstances. Additionally, by denying the defense motion for
continuance, defense counsel argues that trial court deprived defendant of the
opportunity for an independent medical evaluation as well as the opportunity to
present other medical information in a hearing to re-determine defendant’s capacity
to assist counsel and proceed to trial. Defense counsel asserts the trial court’s actions
violated La. C.Cr.P. art. 648 and deprived defendant of due process rights.

The State responds by arguing that the trial judge did not err in proceeding with
a second competency hearing. First, the State points out that defense counsel argues
the second competency hearing was premature but does not challenge the finding of
competency. It also argues that defendant had two months to arrange an independent
medical examination prior to the second competency hearing but failed to do so.

2
24-K-446

A criminal defendant has a constitutional right not to be tried while legally
incompetent. State v. Carmouche, 2001-0405 (La. 5/14/02), 872 So.2d 1020, 1041,
on reh'g (Sept. 25, 2003).

The issue of a defendant’s mental incapacity to proceed may be raised by the
defense, the district attorney, or the court at any time. La. C.Cr.P. art. 642; State v.
Johnson, 10-612 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1/25/11), 60 So.3d 653, 657, writ denied, 11-316
(La. 6/17/11), 63 So.3d 1038. There is a legal presumption that a defendant is sane
and competent to proceed to trial. La. R.S. 15:432. Accordingly, the defendant has
the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence his incapacity to stand trial.
State v. Johnson, 14-238 (La. App. 5 Cir. 11/25/14), 165 So.3d 961, 966. 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, 06-2988 (La. 12/2/08), 5 So.3d 42,
55, cert. denied, 558 U.S. 932, 130 S.Ct. 70, 175 L.Ed.2d 233 (2009). The trial
court’s determinations as to a defendant’s competency is afforded great weight, and
the trial court’s ruling will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.
State v. Anderson, 06-2987 (La. 9/9/08), 996 So.2d 973, 992, cert. denied, 556 U.S.
1165, 129 S.Ct.1906, 173 L.Ed.2d 1057 (2009).

Under La. C.Cr.P. art. 641, “[m]ental 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.” The two-fold test
of 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, on
reh'g (June 21, 2002).

In State v. Bennett, 345 So.2d 1129, 1138 (La. 1977), the Louisiana Supreme
Court provided the following factors to be considered in determining whether a
defendant is able to assist in his defense:

[W]hether he is able to recall and relate facts pertaining to his actions
and whereabouts at certain times; whether he is able to assist counsel in
locating and examining relevant witnesses; whether he is able to
maintain a consistent defense; whether he is able to listen to the
testimony of witnesses and inform his lawyer of any distortions or
misstatements; whether he has the ability to make simple decisions in
response to well-explained alternatives; whether, if necessary to defense
strategy, he is capable of testifying in his own defense; and to what
extent, if any, his mental condition is apt to deteriorate under the stress
of trial.

The record shows that on May 30, 2024, the trial judge found defendant
incompetent to proceed after hearing evidence of findings by the sanity commission
physicians as well as the independent medical examiner. In its order finding
defendant incompetent, the trial court ordered defendant’s commitment to ELMHS
for evaluation, jail-based treatment, if necessary. The trial court also ordered the
sanity commission physicians to re-evaluate defendant and issue their updated report
within sixty days of its May 30, 2024 order. The record further shows that defense
counsel was aware of the trial court’s May 30th orders, including the order for an
updated competency evaluation within sixty days, and presented no objection.

3
24-K-446

In this writ application, defendant argues that the second competency hearing
held on July 31 and August 1, 2024, was held prematurely and not in accordance with
the Code of Criminal Procedure. We disagree. The record shows that the hearing
was always intended to be a competency hearing, not just a status hearing. Evidence
was presented in the May 30, 2024 hearing that defendant met the first test of
capacity to stand trial. However, expert opinions were split as to defendant’s
capacity to assist counsel with her defense. In light of that evidence, the court found
defendant incapable to proceed and ordered sanity commission doctors to re-evaluate
defendant’s competence within sixty days of May 30, 2024. Defense even noted in its
writ application that the court, in its “Jail-Based Treatment Order”, also ordered the
sanity commission doctors to “conduct an updated competency evaluation and report
their updated findings to the Court on the 31st day of July 2024.” Thus, the defense
was clearly on notice of the trial court’s purpose for setting the hearing and nothing
precluded the defense from having defendant re-evaluated by its own doctor under
La. C.Cr.P. art. 646 within that period. Hence, we find no error in the trial court’s
denial of the defendant’s motion for continuance of the second competency hearing.

Additionally, defendant argues in this writ application that the sanity
commission doctors should have reviewed defendant’s medical records before
writing their report. Defense counsel points out that defendant was not committed to
ELMHS as previously ordered and contends defendant did not receive jail-based
treatment before the sanity commission’s re-examination. Testimonial and
documentary evidence presented at the second hearing reflect that defendant was seen
by a counselor at the jail weekly and had refused medication management. Dr. Lo
testified that forced medication was not necessary because defendant was not a
danger to herself or others at that time. Further, forced medication was not ordered
by the trial court. Dr. Roberts testified that his competency recommendation would
not be altered if defendant was taking prescribed medications or receiving jail-based
treatment. Based on his re-evaluation examination, Dr. Roberts testified that he did
not recommend treatment or evaluation at ELMHS.

Finally, defense counsel argues that the trial judge erred by not following the
requirements of La. C.Cr.P. art. 648. We disagree. La. C.Cr.P. art. 648(A)(2)(d) and
(e) are inapplicable because defendant was not held in the parish jail for 180 days
after the finding of incompetency. Neither circumstance is presented in this case.

Based on the foregoing, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion
by holding a second hearing on defendant’s competency on July 31 and August 1,
2024. Additionally, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s determination of
defendant’s competency to proceed to trial, and do not find that determination
violated the provisions set forth in Article 648.

Accordingly, this writ application is denied.

Gretna, Louisiana, this 19th day of November, 2024.

TSM
MEJ
SUS

4
24-K-446

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL

CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT

SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST LINDA M. WISEMAN
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR.
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL
TIMOTHY S. MARCEL FIFTH CIRCUIT
MELISSA C. LEDET
JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053)
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF
POST OFFICE BOX 489
GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400

(504) 376-1498 FAX
www.fifthcircuit.org

NOTICE OF DISPOSITION CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE DISPOSITION IN THE FOREGOING MATTER HAS BEEN
TRANSMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 4-6 THIS
DAY 11/19/2024 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, THE TRIAL COURT CLERK OF COURT, AND AT LEAST ONE OF
THE COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR EACH PARTY, AND TO EACH PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY
COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

24-K-446
E-NOTIFIED
24th Judicial District Court (Clerk)
Honorable Nancy A. Miller (DISTRICT JUDGE)
Darren A. Allemand (Respondent) Thomas J. Butler (Respondent)
Mark D. Plaisance (Relator)

MAILED
Remy V. Starns (Relator) Christen E. DeNicholas (Relator) Paul C. Fleming, Jr. (Relator)
Attorney at Law Attorney at Law Cesar J. Vazquez (Relator)
301 Main Street 848 Second Street Letita J. Parker-Davis (Relator)
Suite 700 3rd Floor Attorney at Law
Baton Rouge, LA 70825 Gretna, LA 70053 848 Second Street
Gretna, LA 70053
Marcus J. Plaisance (Relator) Honorable Paul D. Connick, Jr.
Attorney at Law (Respondent)
Post Office Box 1123 Rachel L. Africk (Respondent)
Prairieville, LA 70769 Assistant District Attorney
Twenty-Fourth Judicial District
200 Derbigny Street
Gretna, LA 70053