===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-17-1555_Correspondence for Judicial Approval_2022-12-27_20240430093546.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-17-1555 defendant: ADRIAN MICHAEL WESLEY filing_type: Correspondence for Judicial Approval filing_date: 2022-12-27 pages: 002 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/002 ===== 27-CR-17-1555 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 12/27/2022 12:10 PM DIRECT CARE & TREATMENT – FORENSIC SERVICES December 27, 2022 The Honorable Presiding Judge of Hennepin County Judge of the Fourth Judicial District Court – Hennepin County Hennepin County District Court Hennepin County Government Center 300 S. 6th St. Minneapolis, MN 55487 RE: State v. Adrian Wesley, Rule 20.01, subd. 7 competency evaluation Court Files: 27-CR-17-1555, 27-CR-17-8342; 27-CR-17-22909 Dear Judge of Hennepin County, I am the Court Liaison for DHS Direct Care and Treatment- Forensic Services, and I write regarding the pending competency evaluation for the Defendant in the above-referenced cases. Defendant was found incompetent to participate in his defense under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 20.01 on 8/9/21, and they were subsequently civilly committed. The DHS Forensic Evaluation Department, on behalf of DHS, the entity to which Defendant is committed, will be providing subd. 7 competency evaluation services in this matter.1 Dr. Gregory Hanson is assigned to conduct this evaluation. In order to provide a comprehensive evaluation, Dr. Hanson will need to review records relating to clinical treatment Defendant has received or is receiving. State and federal data privacy laws do not allow Dr. Hanson access to treatment records absent a court order. Defendant’s treatment records are relevant to Dr. Hanson’s review and evaluation and will assist him in providing a more comprehensive opinion regarding Defendant’s current mental condition and competency status. For these reasons, I respectfully request that the attached proposed order for the release of medical records be signed and returned to me to allow the disclosure of treatment records to my office. Additionally, we request this language be included in all orders finding incompetence moving forward, as this would save time and resources for future subd. 7 competency evaluations completed by Forensic Services. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, Amanda Burg, Court Liaison, Forensic Mental Health Program Direct Care & Treatment - Forensic Services 1703 County Road 15 St. Peter, MN 56082 Phone: 507-985-2659 1 DHS notes that although it is providing competency evaluation services in this matter, it is not a party to this proceeding and has not consented to be a party to this proceeding. ===== PAGE 002/002 ===== 27-CR-17-1555 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 12/27/2022 12:10 PM Copies: Hennepin County Court Administration Prosecuting Attorney Criminal Defense Attorney ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-17-1555_Find of Fact-Order, Pet Commitment-Dfd Found Incompetent_2020-05-08_20240430093550.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-17-1555 defendant: ADRIAN MICHAEL WESLEY filing_type: Find of Fact-Order, Pet Commitment-Dfd Found Incompetent filing_date: 2020-05-08 pages: 007 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/007 ===== 27-CR-17-1555 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 5/8/2020 3:50 PM State of Minnesota District Court County of Hennepin Fourth Judicial District Judge Lisa K. Janzen State of Minnesota, Case Type: Criminal Plaintiff, FINDINGS OF FACT AND v. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING DEFENDANT’S COMPETENCY TO PROCEED Adrian Wesley, Defendant. Case Numbers: 27-CR-17-1555 27-CR-17-22909 27-CR-17-8342 The above-entitled matter came before Lisa K. Janzen, Judge of District Court, on February 10, 2020, for an evidentiary hearing upon the Defense’s objection to the competency opinion rendered by Dr. Jason Lewis, dated October 1, 2019. Amy Blagoev, Assistant Hennepin County Attorney, appeared for the State. Julius Nolen, appeared on behalf of the defendant who was personally present. Dr. Jason Lewis, PhD, LP, of State Operated Forensic Services testified and the court received his report dated October 1, 2019 and his Curriculum Vitae as exhibits. The court also took judicial notice of the five previous rule 20.01 evaluations filed in the case. The court took the matter under advisement on February 10, 2020. Based upon the arguments presented and all the files and records herein, the Court orders as follows: 1. Defendant is INCOMPETENT to proceed. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Rule 20.01 of the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure requires the court to find that the defendant is not competent unless the greater weight of the evidence shows that the defendant is competent. Minn.R.Crim.P. Rule 20.01, subd. 5 (c). A defendant is not competent if, due to mental illness or cognitive impairment he is unable to “(a) rationally consult with counsel or (b) understand the proceedings or participate in the defense.” Id., subd. 2. The determination of whether a defendant is able ===== PAGE 002/007 ===== 27-CR-17-1555 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 5/8/2020 3:50 PM to rationally consult with the defense attorney or understand and participate in the proceedings turns on the facts of each particular case. Mr. Wesley has been charged in file 27-CR-17-1555 with one count of Criminal Sexual Conduct in the 2nd Degree arising from an incident alleged to have occurred on January 15, 2017. He is also charged in file 27-CR-17-22909 with one count of Assault in the 4th Degree from an incident alleged to have occurred on July 14, 2017. Finally, he is charged in file 27-CR-17-8342 with one count of Criminal Damage to Property in the First Degree for an incident alleged to have occurred on March 5, 2017. On January 20, 2017 Judge Jay Quam found probable cause on file 27-CR-17-1555 and ordered that a Rule 20.01 evaluation be completed. Dr. Kristen A. Otte, Psy.D. LP of Hennepin Psychological Services was assigned to complete the first 20.01 evaluation of the defendant. She filed her report on February 17, 2017. Dr. Otte opined that Mr. Wesley was incompetent and provided the following diagnoses: 1. Other Specified Neurodevelopmental Disorder (Associated with Prenatal Alcohol Exposure, formerly referred to as Fetal Alcohol Syndrome). 2. Intellectual Disability, Moderate 3. Unspecified Depressive Disorder Dr. Otte indicated further information was required to determine whether Mr. Wesley met the diagnostic criteria for a psychotic disorder. Dr. Otte noted Mr. Wesley’s clinical presentation is complex due to his long standing and well- documented history of neurodevelopmental deficits and intellectual disabilities which contribute to problems with emotion regulation and behavioral control as well as his ability to communicate effectively about his thoughts and emotions. Mr. Wesley demonstrates a history of aggression and impulse control as well as sexually inappropriate behavior. Dr. Otte noted these issues are further compounded by his hearing impairment and that he requires the use of ASL interpreters to communicate and participate in evaluation interviews. Mr. Wesley’s deficits are due to drug and alcohol exposure in-utero. Due to maternal abuse and neglect he was removed from his mother’s care. His hearing loss is due to recurrent and untreated ear infections. ===== PAGE 003/007 ===== 27-CR-17-1555 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 5/8/2020 3:50 PM Dr. Otte indicated in her evaluation that Mr. Wesley’s impairments result in significant deficits in planning and decision-making, reasoning, problem-solving, abstract thinking, emotion regulation, adaptive functioning and self-care. She opined that the deficits associated with his neurodevelopmental disorder and intellectual disability significantly interfere with his competency-related functioning. Dr. Otte opined that his prognosis for maintaining the requisite competency-related abilities is exceedingly poor. She noted his deficits and disabilities are chronic and long standing despite a long history of intensive support and intervention and wrote, “There is little likelihood that Mr. Wesley would be restored to competency in the foreseeable future.” On February 21, 2017, Judge Carolina Lamas entered findings of incompetency on all three of Mr. Wesley’s files and referred him for screening for civil commitment. He was subsequently committed as Developmentally Disabled and Mentally Ill and Dangerous. The Department of Human Services placed him in the Minnesota Security Hospital - St. Peter where he continues to reside as a patient. Subsequently he has undergone four additional forensic evaluations conducted by Dr. Jason Lewis of State Operated Forensic Services. In each of the four subsequent evaluations, Dr. Lewis opined that Mr. Wesley was incompetent. Additionally, Dr. Lewis included a diagnoses of Unspecified Schizophrenia Spectrum and Psychotic Disorder. In the most recent Rule 20.01 evaluation, filed on October 1, 2019, Dr. Lewis filed a report opining that Mr. Wesley has been restored to competency. Dr. Lewis noted that Mr. Wesley is psychiatrically stable and has been psychiatrically stable for the last couple evaluations. Dr. Lewis indicated Mr. Wesley demonstrates a lack of ongoing psychosis, he is alert, and his memory and thought processes are intact. Thus, Mr. Wesley’s mental illness is not currently interfering significantly with competency issues. The questions the court must determine is whether Mr. Wesley’s chronic cognitive deficits render him incompetent. Dr. Lewis is a forensic examiner for State Operated Forensic Services and was previously the Clinical Director of the Competency Restoration Program. He testified that the Competency Restoration Program focuses on educating patients about the criminal legal process, including the roles of the parties in ===== PAGE 004/007 ===== 27-CR-17-1555 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 5/8/2020 3:50 PM the legal system, the trial process and possible sentences. They also discuss the evidence and facts in each patient’s case. The goal is for the patients to understand the legal process sufficiently to be able to rationally consult with counsel and to be able to participate in their defense. The program consists of group class sessions and uses an assessment tool, consisting of one-hundred questions about the criminal process, to assist with a competency determination. At the evidentiary hearing Dr. Lewis testified that the main factor he considered in his opinion that Mr. Wesley has been restored to competency was that Mr. Wesley had recently demonstrated an increased knowledge of legal concepts and facts related to his charges. Dr. Lewis testified the hospital had recently increased the frequency of Mr. Wesley’s competency restoration sessions as compared to the prior evaluation review period. Dr. Lewis testified that Mr. Wesley is now able to discuss the evidence, facts and possible sentences of each of his cases individually. This is consistent with the restoration program’s records which show substantial progress being made in the restoration groups he has been participating in. Dr. Lewis testified regarding Mr. Wesley’s recent performance on the assessment tool. Below are examples of questions and responses given by Mr. Wesley noted during the hearing. 1. When asked whether he is obligated to accept a plea bargain Mr. Wesley responded, “Defendants have to take a plea bargain”. Dr. Lewis testified he did consider this significant as it relates to competency. 2. Mr. Wesley was unable to understand the difference between a sentence to jail and a prison sentence. Dr. Lewis testified he did not consider this significant. 3. When asked to explain what not guilty by reason of mental illness means Mr. Wesley responded, “Maybe I did it but they are going to drop the charges”. Dr. Wesley testified this response is inadequate but not significant. 4. Mr. Wesley was able to identify six basis rights rudimentarily. 5. Mr. Wesley answered one question, “If I plead not guilty the charge will be dropped”. 6. Mr. Wesley was not able to answer some questions without being given clues and took a significant amount of time to answer many questions. ===== PAGE 005/007 ===== 27-CR-17-1555 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 5/8/2020 3:50 PM Dr. Lewis agreed that Mr. Wesley still demonstrates some deficits as it relates to competency, but that based on the totality of the data he is now able to communicate rationally with counsel and participate in his defense, with the caveat that defense counsel is encouraged to use simple language to explain the legal concepts and to identify multiple ways to describe complicated legal concepts. Dr. Lewis wrote, “Put another way, the ‘legalese’ that a layman with no mental illness or intellectual deficits would find confusing will be particularly challenging for Mr. Wesley, but he has demonstrated the ability to participate meaningfully in his defense when the discourse is simplified.” Dr. Lewis also made an additional recommendation that the sign language interpreter have a CDI certification, which means that the interpreter is also deaf and familiar with deaf culture. This type of interpreter is considered more able to accurately interpret and communicate. Dr. Lewis testified that the last time he met with Mr. Wesley was in September but that the notes he reviewed regarding progress between October and February indicated he has not decompensated. He also testified that if Mr. Wesley were to stop taking the competency restoration classes he would likely regress to incompetency. At the evidentiary hearing attorney Susan Herlofsky testified that she is not the attorney of record for Mr. Wesley, but works at the public defender office with assigned counsel, Julius Nolen. She met with Mr. Wesley and assigned counsel prior to the hearing and sat at counsel table during the hearing. She testified in their conversation prior to the hearing Mr. Wesley did not understand what a trial was and was unable to understand the difference between a trial by jury and a court trial. He told defense counsel that he was proud that he “passed the test” at St. Peter hospital. Ms. Herlofsky testified at the end of the evidentiary hearing and stated that during the evidentiary hearing Mr. Wesley did not appear to understand the proceedings, had been unable to consult with counsel rationally or answer specific questions that counsel asked of him. Based on the totality of the above noted facts, the court finds that the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates Mr. Wesley is not able to rationally consult with counsel or participate in his defense. While Mr. Wesley has demonstrated a basic understanding of the facts of his case and the legal process during his competency classes, this understanding appears to be rudimentary and fleeting. The court does not find ===== PAGE 006/007 ===== 27-CR-17-1555 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 5/8/2020 3:50 PM that this evidence demonstrates a cognitive ability to understand the legal concepts. Rather, it appears Mr. Wesley has been able to memorize definitions and terms due to repetition as a result of the high frequency of the competency classes he attends. This finding is further supported by Dr. Lewis’s testimony that if Mr. Wesley were to discontinue competency restoration classes, he would likely soon regress to incompetency. In order to rationally consult with counsel and participate in his defense, a defendant must have the cognitive ability, after consulting with counsel, to make important decisions about whether to accept a plea bargain, whether to have a jury or court trial and whether or not to testify. These decisions regarding the waiver of constitutional rights must be made by a defendant himself, after consulting with counsel. The defendant’s attorney may not make these decisions for a defendant. While it appears Mr. Wesley now understands that he must behave properly in a courtroom setting and that he should follow the advice of counsel, simply indicating that he will “behave” in the courtroom and do what his lawyers tell him to do not establish that he is competent. His lack of understanding about whether he must accept a plea bargain and the difference between jail and prison is evidence that he is unable to participate in his defense. As noted by the psychologists, his cognitive impairments significantly interfere with his reasoning and decision making abilities. Most importantly, defense counsel’s testimony that during the evidentiary hearing he demonstrated a lack of understanding about what a trial was and did not have the ability to consult with counsel or participate in his defense solidifies the court’s conclusion that Mr. Wesley is incompetent. Finally, it is important to take into consideration the recommendations of Dr. Lewis regarding suggested accommodations that can be made to assist Mr. Wesley in understanding the proceedings. Dr. Lewis indicates that Mr. Wesley does not have the ability to understand the “legalese” that a typical layman defendant would comprehend. His suggestion that defense counsel allot more time than customary, use simple language and explain legal concepts in multiple ways is prudent and the court does believe that defense counsel can implement these strategies. However, under the facts of Mr. Wesley’s case, the court does not find that these accommodations are sufficient to render an otherwise incompetent defendant competent. Slowing down a legal proceeding by pausing or recessing to allow defense counsel to explain ===== PAGE 007/007 ===== 27-CR-17-1555 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 5/8/2020 3:50 PM every process, objection, argument or term used in witness testimony will not be sufficient to allow Mr. Wesley to comprehend the process, rationally consult with counsel and participate in his own defense. Dr. Lewis noted in his April 2019 evaluation that “if his competence-related deficits are primarily the result of intellectual deficits, his prognosis is likely to be poor.” The court finds that his competency related deficits are the result of his intellectual deficits. Although his factual understanding of his charges and the legal process has improved due to competency classes, the greater weight of the evidence does not establish that he has the rational ability to consult with counsel regarding trial strategy, make decisions regarding the waiver of constitutional rights and plea negotiations or otherwise participate in his defense. The state has not met its burden of proving, by greater weight of the evidence that Mr. Wesley is competent. Therefore the court finds that the defendant, Mr. Wesley, is INCOMPETENT. LKJ By the Court: Dated: 5/8/2020 ____________________________________ Lisa K. Janzen Judge of District Court ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-17-1555_Notice of Motion and Motion_2020-01-23_20240430093554.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-17-1555 defendant: ADRIAN MICHAEL WESLEY filing_type: Notice of Motion and Motion filing_date: 2020-01-23 pages: 002 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/002 ===== 27-CR-17-1555 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 1/23/2020 9:24 AM STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT State of Minnesota, STATE’S NOTICE OF MOTIONS Plaintiff, AND PRETRIAL MOTIONS vs. Court Case No. 27-CR-17-1555; 27-CR-17-22909; and 27-CR-17-8342 Adrian Michael Wesley, Defendant. TO: JUDGE OF DISTRICT COURT, ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT, and DEFENDANT. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the State hereby moves the Court for the following relief: For an Order directing the Forensic Mental Health Program in St. Peter to produce to Counsel copies of records relied upon in preparing the Competency Evaluation dated 10/1/2019, in the above-captioned matters. This request does not include police reports, court records, and previous competency evaluations as identified in lines 1-16 of the enumerated Information Sources section of the report, since Counsel already has access to those items. MOTION On October 2, 2019, a Competency Evaluation was filed in District Court relating to the above captioned cases. In that report, the Examiner, Dr. Jason Lewis, opined that Mr. Wesley has regained competency to proceed in this matter. Defendant has demanded a hearing to challenge that finding. The hearing is scheduled for February 10, 2020. The State has reached out to the forensic services division at the State Hospital in St. Peter to request copies of documents that Dr. Lewis relied upon in preparing the evaluation, and was advised that a Court Order would be required to release the records. Copies of these records are required to prepare for and proceed with the competency hearing. Therefore, the State requests that the Court enter an Order permitting release of the requested records to the parties in this matter. I have conferred with counsel for the Defense, Julius Nolen, and he does not object to this motion. Page 1 of 4 ===== PAGE 002/002 ===== 27-CR-17-1555 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 1/23/2020 9:24 AM Date: January 23, 2020 Respectfully submitted, MICHAEL O. FREEMAN Hennepin County Attorney Anna Petosky (#388163) Assistant County Attorney C2100 GOVERNMENT CENTER 300 SOUTH SIXTH STREET Minneapolis, MN 55487 Telephone: 612-348-4101 Page 2 of 4 ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-17-1555_Order-Other_2020-01-23_20240430093552.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-17-1555 defendant: ADRIAN MICHAEL WESLEY filing_type: Order-Other filing_date: 2020-01-23 pages: 002 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/002 ===== 27-CR-17-1555 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 1/23/2020 1:22 PM STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT State of Minnesota, FINDINGS AND ORDER Plaintiff, vs. Court Case No. 27-CR—1 7- 1 555; 27—CR—17-22909; and 27—CR~17—8342 Adrian Michael Wesley, Defendant. WHEREAS, the Court nds that: 1. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. 61 1.026 and Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 20.01, a Competency Hearing is scheduled for February 10, 2020, in the above matters. 2. The report and testimony of Dr. Jason Lewis om the Forensic Mental Health Program — St. Peter will be important pieces of evidence in that proceeding. 3. The requested records will assist in determining Whether Defendant has competency to proceed with criminal prosecution. 4. The public interest and the need for disclosure of the records in this case outweigh any possible injury to the patient, to the physician-patient relationship, and to the treatment services. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 1. Forensic Mental Health Program — St. Peter shall produce all sources of information referenced in Dr. Jason Lewis’s Competency Evaluation dated October 1, 201 9, including medical records and any collateral documentation, notes, and other information pertinent to the ndings therein. This order does not include documents which the parties already have access to, such as the police reports, court records, and prior competency evaluations (Information Sources 1- 16 referenced in the report). Forensic Mental Health Program — St. Peter shall provide this information within ten days of receiving this Order. Forensic Mental Health Program — St. Peter shall provide the documents either by hard copy or electronically to the following addresses: Anna Petosky Assistant Hennepin County Attorney HCAO Adult Prosecution Division, A2100 Page 3 of 4 ===== PAGE 002/002 ===== 27-CR-17-1555 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 1/23/2020 1:22 PM 300 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55487 Julius Nolen Assistant Hennepin County Public Defender 701 Fourth Ave. South, Suite 1400 Minneapolis, MN 5541 5—1600 BY THE COURT: ”swam ‘ ”MA Judge/of bistrict Court gm, Page 4 of 4 ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-17-1555_Proposed Order or Document_2020-01-23_20240430093553.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-17-1555 defendant: ADRIAN MICHAEL WESLEY filing_type: Proposed Order or Document filing_date: 2020-01-23 pages: 002 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/002 ===== 27-CR-17-1555 STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT State of Minnesota, FINDINGS AND ORDER Plaintiff, vs. Court Case No. 27-CR-17-1555; 27-CR-17-22909; and 27-CR-17-8342 Adrian Michael Wesley, Defendant. WHEREAS, the Court finds that: 1. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. 611.026 and Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 20.01, a Competency Hearing is scheduled for February 10, 2020, in the above matters. 2. The report and testimony of Dr. Jason Lewis from the Forensic Mental Health Program – St. Peter will be important pieces of evidence in that proceeding. 3. The requested records will assist in determining whether Defendant has competency to proceed with criminal prosecution. 4. The public interest and the need for disclosure of the records in this case outweigh any possible injury to the patient, to the physician-patient relationship, and to the treatment services. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 1. Forensic Mental Health Program – St. Peter shall produce all sources of information referenced in Dr. Jason Lewis’s Competency Evaluation dated October 1, 2019, including medical records and any collateral documentation, notes, and other information pertinent to the findings therein. This order does not include documents which the parties already have access to, such as the police reports, court records, and prior competency evaluations (Information Sources 1- 16 referenced in the report). 2. Forensic Mental Health Program – St. Peter shall provide this information within ten days of receiving this Order. 3. Forensic Mental Health Program – St. Peter shall provide the documents either by hard copy or electronically to the following addresses: Anna Petosky Assistant Hennepin County Attorney HCAO Adult Prosecution Division, A2100 Page 3 of 4 ===== PAGE 002/002 ===== 27-CR-17-1555 300 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55487 Julius Nolen Assistant Hennepin County Public Defender 701 Fourth Ave. South, Suite 1400 Minneapolis, MN 55415-1600 BY THE COURT: Judge of District Court Page 4 of 4 ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-17-22909_Correspondence for Judicial Approval_2022-12-27_20240430093723.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-17-22909 defendant: ADRIAN MICHAEL WESLEY filing_type: Correspondence for Judicial Approval filing_date: 2022-12-27 pages: 002 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/002 ===== 27-CR-17-22909 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 12/27/2022 12:15 PM DIRECT CARE & TREATMENT – FORENSIC SERVICES December 27, 2022 The Honorable Presiding Judge of Hennepin County Judge of the Fourth Judicial District Court – Hennepin County Hennepin County District Court Hennepin County Government Center 300 S. 6th St. Minneapolis, MN 55487 RE: State v. Adrian Wesley, Rule 20.01, subd. 7 competency evaluation Court Files: 27-CR-17-1555, 27-CR-17-8342; 27-CR-17-22909 Dear Judge of Hennepin County, I am the Court Liaison for DHS Direct Care and Treatment- Forensic Services, and I write regarding the pending competency evaluation for the Defendant in the above-referenced cases. Defendant was found incompetent to participate in his defense under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 20.01 on 8/9/21, and they were subsequently civilly committed. The DHS Forensic Evaluation Department, on behalf of DHS, the entity to which Defendant is committed, will be providing subd. 7 competency evaluation services in this matter.1 Dr. Gregory Hanson is assigned to conduct this evaluation. In order to provide a comprehensive evaluation, Dr. Hanson will need to review records relating to clinical treatment Defendant has received or is receiving. State and federal data privacy laws do not allow Dr. Hanson access to treatment records absent a court order. Defendant’s treatment records are relevant to Dr. Hanson’s review and evaluation and will assist him in providing a more comprehensive opinion regarding Defendant’s current mental condition and competency status. For these reasons, I respectfully request that the attached proposed order for the release of medical records be signed and returned to me to allow the disclosure of treatment records to my office. Additionally, we request this language be included in all orders finding incompetence moving forward, as this would save time and resources for future subd. 7 competency evaluations completed by Forensic Services. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, Amanda Burg, Court Liaison, Forensic Mental Health Program Direct Care & Treatment - Forensic Services 1703 County Road 15 St. Peter, MN 56082 Phone: 507-985-2659 1 DHS notes that although it is providing competency evaluation services in this matter, it is not a party to this proceeding and has not consented to be a party to this proceeding. ===== PAGE 002/002 ===== 27-CR-17-22909 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 12/27/2022 12:15 PM Copies: Hennepin County Court Administration Prosecuting Attorney Criminal Defense Attorney ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-17-22909_Find of Fact-Order, Pet Commitment-Dfd Found Incompetent_2020-05-08_20240430093726.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-17-22909 defendant: ADRIAN MICHAEL WESLEY filing_type: Find of Fact-Order, Pet Commitment-Dfd Found Incompetent filing_date: 2020-05-08 pages: 007 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/007 ===== 27-CR-17-22909 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 5/8/2020 3:52 PM State of Minnesota District Court County of Hennepin Fourth Judicial District Judge Lisa K. Janzen State of Minnesota, Case Type: Criminal Plaintiff, FINDINGS OF FACT AND v. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING DEFENDANT’S COMPETENCY TO PROCEED Adrian Wesley, Defendant. Case Numbers: 27-CR-17-1555 27-CR-17-22909 27-CR-17-8342 The above-entitled matter came before Lisa K. Janzen, Judge of District Court, on February 10, 2020, for an evidentiary hearing upon the Defense’s objection to the competency opinion rendered by Dr. Jason Lewis, dated October 1, 2019. Amy Blagoev, Assistant Hennepin County Attorney, appeared for the State. Julius Nolen, appeared on behalf of the defendant who was personally present. Dr. Jason Lewis, PhD, LP, of State Operated Forensic Services testified and the court received his report dated October 1, 2019 and his Curriculum Vitae as exhibits. The court also took judicial notice of the five previous rule 20.01 evaluations filed in the case. The court took the matter under advisement on February 10, 2020. Based upon the arguments presented and all the files and records herein, the Court orders as follows: 1. Defendant is INCOMPETENT to proceed. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Rule 20.01 of the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure requires the court to find that the defendant is not competent unless the greater weight of the evidence shows that the defendant is competent. Minn.R.Crim.P. Rule 20.01, subd. 5 (c). A defendant is not competent if, due to mental illness or cognitive impairment he is unable to “(a) rationally consult with counsel or (b) understand the proceedings or participate in the defense.” Id., subd. 2. The determination of whether a defendant is able ===== PAGE 002/007 ===== 27-CR-17-22909 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 5/8/2020 3:52 PM to rationally consult with the defense attorney or understand and participate in the proceedings turns on the facts of each particular case. Mr. Wesley has been charged in file 27-CR-17-1555 with one count of Criminal Sexual Conduct in the 2nd Degree arising from an incident alleged to have occurred on January 15, 2017. He is also charged in file 27-CR-17-22909 with one count of Assault in the 4th Degree from an incident alleged to have occurred on July 14, 2017. Finally, he is charged in file 27-CR-17-8342 with one count of Criminal Damage to Property in the First Degree for an incident alleged to have occurred on March 5, 2017. On January 20, 2017 Judge Jay Quam found probable cause on file 27-CR-17-1555 and ordered that a Rule 20.01 evaluation be completed. Dr. Kristen A. Otte, Psy.D. LP of Hennepin Psychological Services was assigned to complete the first 20.01 evaluation of the defendant. She filed her report on February 17, 2017. Dr. Otte opined that Mr. Wesley was incompetent and provided the following diagnoses: 1. Other Specified Neurodevelopmental Disorder (Associated with Prenatal Alcohol Exposure, formerly referred to as Fetal Alcohol Syndrome). 2. Intellectual Disability, Moderate 3. Unspecified Depressive Disorder Dr. Otte indicated further information was required to determine whether Mr. Wesley met the diagnostic criteria for a psychotic disorder. Dr. Otte noted Mr. Wesley’s clinical presentation is complex due to his long standing and well- documented history of neurodevelopmental deficits and intellectual disabilities which contribute to problems with emotion regulation and behavioral control as well as his ability to communicate effectively about his thoughts and emotions. Mr. Wesley demonstrates a history of aggression and impulse control as well as sexually inappropriate behavior. Dr. Otte noted these issues are further compounded by his hearing impairment and that he requires the use of ASL interpreters to communicate and participate in evaluation interviews. Mr. Wesley’s deficits are due to drug and alcohol exposure in-utero. Due to maternal abuse and neglect he was removed from his mother’s care. His hearing loss is due to recurrent and untreated ear infections. ===== PAGE 003/007 ===== 27-CR-17-22909 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 5/8/2020 3:52 PM Dr. Otte indicated in her evaluation that Mr. Wesley’s impairments result in significant deficits in planning and decision-making, reasoning, problem-solving, abstract thinking, emotion regulation, adaptive functioning and self-care. She opined that the deficits associated with his neurodevelopmental disorder and intellectual disability significantly interfere with his competency-related functioning. Dr. Otte opined that his prognosis for maintaining the requisite competency-related abilities is exceedingly poor. She noted his deficits and disabilities are chronic and long standing despite a long history of intensive support and intervention and wrote, “There is little likelihood that Mr. Wesley would be restored to competency in the foreseeable future.” On February 21, 2017, Judge Carolina Lamas entered findings of incompetency on all three of Mr. Wesley’s files and referred him for screening for civil commitment. He was subsequently committed as Developmentally Disabled and Mentally Ill and Dangerous. The Department of Human Services placed him in the Minnesota Security Hospital - St. Peter where he continues to reside as a patient. Subsequently he has undergone four additional forensic evaluations conducted by Dr. Jason Lewis of State Operated Forensic Services. In each of the four subsequent evaluations, Dr. Lewis opined that Mr. Wesley was incompetent. Additionally, Dr. Lewis included a diagnoses of Unspecified Schizophrenia Spectrum and Psychotic Disorder. In the most recent Rule 20.01 evaluation, filed on October 1, 2019, Dr. Lewis filed a report opining that Mr. Wesley has been restored to competency. Dr. Lewis noted that Mr. Wesley is psychiatrically stable and has been psychiatrically stable for the last couple evaluations. Dr. Lewis indicated Mr. Wesley demonstrates a lack of ongoing psychosis, he is alert, and his memory and thought processes are intact. Thus, Mr. Wesley’s mental illness is not currently interfering significantly with competency issues. The questions the court must determine is whether Mr. Wesley’s chronic cognitive deficits render him incompetent. Dr. Lewis is a forensic examiner for State Operated Forensic Services and was previously the Clinical Director of the Competency Restoration Program. He testified that the Competency Restoration Program focuses on educating patients about the criminal legal process, including the roles of the parties in ===== PAGE 004/007 ===== 27-CR-17-22909 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 5/8/2020 3:52 PM the legal system, the trial process and possible sentences. They also discuss the evidence and facts in each patient’s case. The goal is for the patients to understand the legal process sufficiently to be able to rationally consult with counsel and to be able to participate in their defense. The program consists of group class sessions and uses an assessment tool, consisting of one-hundred questions about the criminal process, to assist with a competency determination. At the evidentiary hearing Dr. Lewis testified that the main factor he considered in his opinion that Mr. Wesley has been restored to competency was that Mr. Wesley had recently demonstrated an increased knowledge of legal concepts and facts related to his charges. Dr. Lewis testified the hospital had recently increased the frequency of Mr. Wesley’s competency restoration sessions as compared to the prior evaluation review period. Dr. Lewis testified that Mr. Wesley is now able to discuss the evidence, facts and possible sentences of each of his cases individually. This is consistent with the restoration program’s records which show substantial progress being made in the restoration groups he has been participating in. Dr. Lewis testified regarding Mr. Wesley’s recent performance on the assessment tool. Below are examples of questions and responses given by Mr. Wesley noted during the hearing. 1. When asked whether he is obligated to accept a plea bargain Mr. Wesley responded, “Defendants have to take a plea bargain”. Dr. Lewis testified he did consider this significant as it relates to competency. 2. Mr. Wesley was unable to understand the difference between a sentence to jail and a prison sentence. Dr. Lewis testified he did not consider this significant. 3. When asked to explain what not guilty by reason of mental illness means Mr. Wesley responded, “Maybe I did it but they are going to drop the charges”. Dr. Wesley testified this response is inadequate but not significant. 4. Mr. Wesley was able to identify six basis rights rudimentarily. 5. Mr. Wesley answered one question, “If I plead not guilty the charge will be dropped”. 6. Mr. Wesley was not able to answer some questions without being given clues and took a significant amount of time to answer many questions. ===== PAGE 005/007 ===== 27-CR-17-22909 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 5/8/2020 3:52 PM Dr. Lewis agreed that Mr. Wesley still demonstrates some deficits as it relates to competency, but that based on the totality of the data he is now able to communicate rationally with counsel and participate in his defense, with the caveat that defense counsel is encouraged to use simple language to explain the legal concepts and to identify multiple ways to describe complicated legal concepts. Dr. Lewis wrote, “Put another way, the ‘legalese’ that a layman with no mental illness or intellectual deficits would find confusing will be particularly challenging for Mr. Wesley, but he has demonstrated the ability to participate meaningfully in his defense when the discourse is simplified.” Dr. Lewis also made an additional recommendation that the sign language interpreter have a CDI certification, which means that the interpreter is also deaf and familiar with deaf culture. This type of interpreter is considered more able to accurately interpret and communicate. Dr. Lewis testified that the last time he met with Mr. Wesley was in September but that the notes he reviewed regarding progress between October and February indicated he has not decompensated. He also testified that if Mr. Wesley were to stop taking the competency restoration classes he would likely regress to incompetency. At the evidentiary hearing attorney Susan Herlofsky testified that she is not the attorney of record for Mr. Wesley, but works at the public defender office with assigned counsel, Julius Nolen. She met with Mr. Wesley and assigned counsel prior to the hearing and sat at counsel table during the hearing. She testified in their conversation prior to the hearing Mr. Wesley did not understand what a trial was and was unable to understand the difference between a trial by jury and a court trial. He told defense counsel that he was proud that he “passed the test” at St. Peter hospital. Ms. Herlofsky testified at the end of the evidentiary hearing and stated that during the evidentiary hearing Mr. Wesley did not appear to understand the proceedings, had been unable to consult with counsel rationally or answer specific questions that counsel asked of him. Based on the totality of the above noted facts, the court finds that the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates Mr. Wesley is not able to rationally consult with counsel or participate in his defense. While Mr. Wesley has demonstrated a basic understanding of the facts of his case and the legal process during his competency classes, this understanding appears to be rudimentary and fleeting. The court does not find ===== PAGE 006/007 ===== 27-CR-17-22909 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 5/8/2020 3:52 PM that this evidence demonstrates a cognitive ability to understand the legal concepts. Rather, it appears Mr. Wesley has been able to memorize definitions and terms due to repetition as a result of the high frequency of the competency classes he attends. This finding is further supported by Dr. Lewis’s testimony that if Mr. Wesley were to discontinue competency restoration classes, he would likely soon regress to incompetency. In order to rationally consult with counsel and participate in his defense, a defendant must have the cognitive ability, after consulting with counsel, to make important decisions about whether to accept a plea bargain, whether to have a jury or court trial and whether or not to testify. These decisions regarding the waiver of constitutional rights must be made by a defendant himself, after consulting with counsel. The defendant’s attorney may not make these decisions for a defendant. While it appears Mr. Wesley now understands that he must behave properly in a courtroom setting and that he should follow the advice of counsel, simply indicating that he will “behave” in the courtroom and do what his lawyers tell him to do not establish that he is competent. His lack of understanding about whether he must accept a plea bargain and the difference between jail and prison is evidence that he is unable to participate in his defense. As noted by the psychologists, his cognitive impairments significantly interfere with his reasoning and decision making abilities. Most importantly, defense counsel’s testimony that during the evidentiary hearing he demonstrated a lack of understanding about what a trial was and did not have the ability to consult with counsel or participate in his defense solidifies the court’s conclusion that Mr. Wesley is incompetent. Finally, it is important to take into consideration the recommendations of Dr. Lewis regarding suggested accommodations that can be made to assist Mr. Wesley in understanding the proceedings. Dr. Lewis indicates that Mr. Wesley does not have the ability to understand the “legalese” that a typical layman defendant would comprehend. His suggestion that defense counsel allot more time than customary, use simple language and explain legal concepts in multiple ways is prudent and the court does believe that defense counsel can implement these strategies. However, under the facts of Mr. Wesley’s case, the court does not find that these accommodations are sufficient to render an otherwise incompetent defendant competent. Slowing down a legal proceeding by pausing or recessing to allow defense counsel to explain ===== PAGE 007/007 ===== 27-CR-17-22909 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 5/8/2020 3:52 PM every process, objection, argument or term used in witness testimony will not be sufficient to allow Mr. Wesley to comprehend the process, rationally consult with counsel and participate in his own defense. Dr. Lewis noted in his April 2019 evaluation that “if his competence-related deficits are primarily the result of intellectual deficits, his prognosis is likely to be poor.” The court finds that his competency related deficits are the result of his intellectual deficits. Although his factual understanding of his charges and the legal process has improved due to competency classes, the greater weight of the evidence does not establish that he has the rational ability to consult with counsel regarding trial strategy, make decisions regarding the waiver of constitutional rights and plea negotiations or otherwise participate in his defense. The state has not met its burden of proving, by greater weight of the evidence that Mr. Wesley is competent. Therefore the court finds that the defendant, Mr. Wesley, is INCOMPETENT. LKJ By the Court: Dated: 5/8/2020 ____________________________________ Lisa K. Janzen Judge of District Court ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-17-22909_Notice of Motion and Motion_2020-01-23_20240430093730.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-17-22909 defendant: ADRIAN MICHAEL WESLEY filing_type: Notice of Motion and Motion filing_date: 2020-01-23 pages: 002 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/002 ===== 27-CR-17-22909 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 1/23/2020 9:29 AM STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT State of Minnesota, STATE’S NOTICE OF MOTIONS Plaintiff, AND PRETRIAL MOTIONS vs. Court Case No. 27-CR-17-1555; 27-CR-17-22909; and 27-CR-17-8342 Adrian Michael Wesley, Defendant. TO: JUDGE OF DISTRICT COURT, ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT, and DEFENDANT. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the State hereby moves the Court for the following relief: For an Order directing the Forensic Mental Health Program in St. Peter to produce to Counsel copies of records relied upon in preparing the Competency Evaluation dated 10/1/2019, in the above-captioned matters. This request does not include police reports, court records, and previous competency evaluations as identified in lines 1-16 of the enumerated Information Sources section of the report, since Counsel already has access to those items. MOTION On October 2, 2019, a Competency Evaluation was filed in District Court relating to the above captioned cases. In that report, the Examiner, Dr. Jason Lewis, opined that Mr. Wesley has regained competency to proceed in this matter. Defendant has demanded a hearing to challenge that finding. The hearing is scheduled for February 10, 2020. The State has reached out to the forensic services division at the State Hospital in St. Peter to request copies of documents that Dr. Lewis relied upon in preparing the evaluation, and was advised that a Court Order would be required to release the records. Copies of these records are required to prepare for and proceed with the competency hearing. Therefore, the State requests that the Court enter an Order permitting release of the requested records to the parties in this matter. I have conferred with counsel for the Defense, Julius Nolen, and he does not object to this motion. Page 1 of 4 ===== PAGE 002/002 ===== 27-CR-17-22909 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 1/23/2020 9:29 AM Date: January 23, 2020 Respectfully submitted, MICHAEL O. FREEMAN Hennepin County Attorney Anna Petosky (#388163) Assistant County Attorney C2100 GOVERNMENT CENTER 300 SOUTH SIXTH STREET Minneapolis, MN 55487 Telephone: 612-348-4101 Page 2 of 4 ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-17-22909_Order-Other_2020-01-23_20240430093728.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-17-22909 defendant: ADRIAN MICHAEL WESLEY filing_type: Order-Other filing_date: 2020-01-23 pages: 002 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/002 ===== 27-CR-17-22909 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 1/23/2020 1:23 PM STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT State of Minnesota, FINDINGS AND ORDER Plaintiff, vs. Court Case No. 27-CR—1 7- 1 555; 27—CR—17-22909; and 27—CR~17—8342 Adrian Michael Wesley, Defendant. WHEREAS, the Court nds that: 1. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. 61 1.026 and Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 20.01, a Competency Hearing is scheduled for February 10, 2020, in the above matters. 2. The report and testimony of Dr. Jason Lewis om the Forensic Mental Health Program — St. Peter will be important pieces of evidence in that proceeding. 3. The requested records will assist in determining Whether Defendant has competency to proceed with criminal prosecution. 4. The public interest and the need for disclosure of the records in this case outweigh any possible injury to the patient, to the physician-patient relationship, and to the treatment services. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 1. Forensic Mental Health Program — St. Peter shall produce all sources of information referenced in Dr. Jason Lewis’s Competency Evaluation dated October 1, 201 9, including medical records and any collateral documentation, notes, and other information pertinent to the ndings therein. This order does not include documents which the parties already have access to, such as the police reports, court records, and prior competency evaluations (Information Sources 1- 16 referenced in the report). Forensic Mental Health Program — St. Peter shall provide this information within ten days of receiving this Order. Forensic Mental Health Program — St. Peter shall provide the documents either by hard copy or electronically to the following addresses: Anna Petosky Assistant Hennepin County Attorney HCAO Adult Prosecution Division, A2100 Page 3 of 4 ===== PAGE 002/002 ===== 27-CR-17-22909 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 1/23/2020 1:23 PM 300 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55487 Julius Nolen Assistant Hennepin County Public Defender 701 Fourth Ave. South, Suite 1400 Minneapolis, MN 5541 5—1600 BY THE COURT: ”swam ‘ ”MA Judge/of bistrict Court gm, Page 4 of 4 ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-17-22909_Proposed Order or Document_2020-01-23_20240430093729.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-17-22909 defendant: ADRIAN MICHAEL WESLEY filing_type: Proposed Order or Document filing_date: 2020-01-23 pages: 002 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/002 ===== 27-CR-17-22909 STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT State of Minnesota, FINDINGS AND ORDER Plaintiff, vs. Court Case No. 27-CR-17-1555; 27-CR-17-22909; and 27-CR-17-8342 Adrian Michael Wesley, Defendant. WHEREAS, the Court finds that: 1. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. 611.026 and Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 20.01, a Competency Hearing is scheduled for February 10, 2020, in the above matters. 2. The report and testimony of Dr. Jason Lewis from the Forensic Mental Health Program – St. Peter will be important pieces of evidence in that proceeding. 3. The requested records will assist in determining whether Defendant has competency to proceed with criminal prosecution. 4. The public interest and the need for disclosure of the records in this case outweigh any possible injury to the patient, to the physician-patient relationship, and to the treatment services. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 1. Forensic Mental Health Program – St. Peter shall produce all sources of information referenced in Dr. Jason Lewis’s Competency Evaluation dated October 1, 2019, including medical records and any collateral documentation, notes, and other information pertinent to the findings therein. This order does not include documents which the parties already have access to, such as the police reports, court records, and prior competency evaluations (Information Sources 1- 16 referenced in the report). 2. Forensic Mental Health Program – St. Peter shall provide this information within ten days of receiving this Order. 3. Forensic Mental Health Program – St. Peter shall provide the documents either by hard copy or electronically to the following addresses: Anna Petosky Assistant Hennepin County Attorney HCAO Adult Prosecution Division, A2100 Page 3 of 4 ===== PAGE 002/002 ===== 27-CR-17-22909 300 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55487 Julius Nolen Assistant Hennepin County Public Defender 701 Fourth Ave. South, Suite 1400 Minneapolis, MN 55415-1600 BY THE COURT: Judge of District Court Page 4 of 4 ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-17-8342_Correspondence for Judicial Approval_2022-12-27_20240430093640.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-17-8342 defendant: ADRIAN MICHAEL WESLEY filing_type: Correspondence for Judicial Approval filing_date: 2022-12-27 pages: 002 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/002 ===== 27-CR-17-8342 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 12/27/2022 12:13 PM DIRECT CARE & TREATMENT – FORENSIC SERVICES December 27, 2022 The Honorable Presiding Judge of Hennepin County Judge of the Fourth Judicial District Court – Hennepin County Hennepin County District Court Hennepin County Government Center 300 S. 6th St. Minneapolis, MN 55487 RE: State v. Adrian Wesley, Rule 20.01, subd. 7 competency evaluation Court Files: 27-CR-17-1555, 27-CR-17-8342; 27-CR-17-22909 Dear Judge of Hennepin County, I am the Court Liaison for DHS Direct Care and Treatment- Forensic Services, and I write regarding the pending competency evaluation for the Defendant in the above-referenced cases. Defendant was found incompetent to participate in his defense under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 20.01 on 8/9/21, and they were subsequently civilly committed. The DHS Forensic Evaluation Department, on behalf of DHS, the entity to which Defendant is committed, will be providing subd. 7 competency evaluation services in this matter.1 Dr. Gregory Hanson is assigned to conduct this evaluation. In order to provide a comprehensive evaluation, Dr. Hanson will need to review records relating to clinical treatment Defendant has received or is receiving. State and federal data privacy laws do not allow Dr. Hanson access to treatment records absent a court order. Defendant’s treatment records are relevant to Dr. Hanson’s review and evaluation and will assist him in providing a more comprehensive opinion regarding Defendant’s current mental condition and competency status. For these reasons, I respectfully request that the attached proposed order for the release of medical records be signed and returned to me to allow the disclosure of treatment records to my office. Additionally, we request this language be included in all orders finding incompetence moving forward, as this would save time and resources for future subd. 7 competency evaluations completed by Forensic Services. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, Amanda Burg, Court Liaison, Forensic Mental Health Program Direct Care & Treatment - Forensic Services 1703 County Road 15 St. Peter, MN 56082 Phone: 507-985-2659 1 DHS notes that although it is providing competency evaluation services in this matter, it is not a party to this proceeding and has not consented to be a party to this proceeding. ===== PAGE 002/002 ===== 27-CR-17-8342 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 12/27/2022 12:13 PM Copies: Hennepin County Court Administration Prosecuting Attorney Criminal Defense Attorney ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-17-8342_Find of Fact-Order, Pet Commitment-Dfd Found Incompetent_2020-05-08_20240430093644.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-17-8342 defendant: ADRIAN MICHAEL WESLEY filing_type: Find of Fact-Order, Pet Commitment-Dfd Found Incompetent filing_date: 2020-05-08 pages: 007 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/007 ===== 27-CR-17-8342 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 5/8/2020 3:54 PM State of Minnesota District Court County of Hennepin Fourth Judicial District Judge Lisa K. Janzen State of Minnesota, Case Type: Criminal Plaintiff, FINDINGS OF FACT AND v. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING DEFENDANT’S COMPETENCY TO PROCEED Adrian Wesley, Defendant. Case Numbers: 27-CR-17-1555 27-CR-17-22909 27-CR-17-8342 The above-entitled matter came before Lisa K. Janzen, Judge of District Court, on February 10, 2020, for an evidentiary hearing upon the Defense’s objection to the competency opinion rendered by Dr. Jason Lewis, dated October 1, 2019. Amy Blagoev, Assistant Hennepin County Attorney, appeared for the State. Julius Nolen, appeared on behalf of the defendant who was personally present. Dr. Jason Lewis, PhD, LP, of State Operated Forensic Services testified and the court received his report dated October 1, 2019 and his Curriculum Vitae as exhibits. The court also took judicial notice of the five previous rule 20.01 evaluations filed in the case. The court took the matter under advisement on February 10, 2020. Based upon the arguments presented and all the files and records herein, the Court orders as follows: 1. Defendant is INCOMPETENT to proceed. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Rule 20.01 of the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure requires the court to find that the defendant is not competent unless the greater weight of the evidence shows that the defendant is competent. Minn.R.Crim.P. Rule 20.01, subd. 5 (c). A defendant is not competent if, due to mental illness or cognitive impairment he is unable to “(a) rationally consult with counsel or (b) understand the proceedings or participate in the defense.” Id., subd. 2. The determination of whether a defendant is able ===== PAGE 002/007 ===== 27-CR-17-8342 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 5/8/2020 3:54 PM to rationally consult with the defense attorney or understand and participate in the proceedings turns on the facts of each particular case. Mr. Wesley has been charged in file 27-CR-17-1555 with one count of Criminal Sexual Conduct in the 2nd Degree arising from an incident alleged to have occurred on January 15, 2017. He is also charged in file 27-CR-17-22909 with one count of Assault in the 4th Degree from an incident alleged to have occurred on July 14, 2017. Finally, he is charged in file 27-CR-17-8342 with one count of Criminal Damage to Property in the First Degree for an incident alleged to have occurred on March 5, 2017. On January 20, 2017 Judge Jay Quam found probable cause on file 27-CR-17-1555 and ordered that a Rule 20.01 evaluation be completed. Dr. Kristen A. Otte, Psy.D. LP of Hennepin Psychological Services was assigned to complete the first 20.01 evaluation of the defendant. She filed her report on February 17, 2017. Dr. Otte opined that Mr. Wesley was incompetent and provided the following diagnoses: 1. Other Specified Neurodevelopmental Disorder (Associated with Prenatal Alcohol Exposure, formerly referred to as Fetal Alcohol Syndrome). 2. Intellectual Disability, Moderate 3. Unspecified Depressive Disorder Dr. Otte indicated further information was required to determine whether Mr. Wesley met the diagnostic criteria for a psychotic disorder. Dr. Otte noted Mr. Wesley’s clinical presentation is complex due to his long standing and well- documented history of neurodevelopmental deficits and intellectual disabilities which contribute to problems with emotion regulation and behavioral control as well as his ability to communicate effectively about his thoughts and emotions. Mr. Wesley demonstrates a history of aggression and impulse control as well as sexually inappropriate behavior. Dr. Otte noted these issues are further compounded by his hearing impairment and that he requires the use of ASL interpreters to communicate and participate in evaluation interviews. Mr. Wesley’s deficits are due to drug and alcohol exposure in-utero. Due to maternal abuse and neglect he was removed from his mother’s care. His hearing loss is due to recurrent and untreated ear infections. ===== PAGE 003/007 ===== 27-CR-17-8342 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 5/8/2020 3:54 PM Dr. Otte indicated in her evaluation that Mr. Wesley’s impairments result in significant deficits in planning and decision-making, reasoning, problem-solving, abstract thinking, emotion regulation, adaptive functioning and self-care. She opined that the deficits associated with his neurodevelopmental disorder and intellectual disability significantly interfere with his competency-related functioning. Dr. Otte opined that his prognosis for maintaining the requisite competency-related abilities is exceedingly poor. She noted his deficits and disabilities are chronic and long standing despite a long history of intensive support and intervention and wrote, “There is little likelihood that Mr. Wesley would be restored to competency in the foreseeable future.” On February 21, 2017, Judge Carolina Lamas entered findings of incompetency on all three of Mr. Wesley’s files and referred him for screening for civil commitment. He was subsequently committed as Developmentally Disabled and Mentally Ill and Dangerous. The Department of Human Services placed him in the Minnesota Security Hospital - St. Peter where he continues to reside as a patient. Subsequently he has undergone four additional forensic evaluations conducted by Dr. Jason Lewis of State Operated Forensic Services. In each of the four subsequent evaluations, Dr. Lewis opined that Mr. Wesley was incompetent. Additionally, Dr. Lewis included a diagnoses of Unspecified Schizophrenia Spectrum and Psychotic Disorder. In the most recent Rule 20.01 evaluation, filed on October 1, 2019, Dr. Lewis filed a report opining that Mr. Wesley has been restored to competency. Dr. Lewis noted that Mr. Wesley is psychiatrically stable and has been psychiatrically stable for the last couple evaluations. Dr. Lewis indicated Mr. Wesley demonstrates a lack of ongoing psychosis, he is alert, and his memory and thought processes are intact. Thus, Mr. Wesley’s mental illness is not currently interfering significantly with competency issues. The questions the court must determine is whether Mr. Wesley’s chronic cognitive deficits render him incompetent. Dr. Lewis is a forensic examiner for State Operated Forensic Services and was previously the Clinical Director of the Competency Restoration Program. He testified that the Competency Restoration Program focuses on educating patients about the criminal legal process, including the roles of the parties in ===== PAGE 004/007 ===== 27-CR-17-8342 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 5/8/2020 3:54 PM the legal system, the trial process and possible sentences. They also discuss the evidence and facts in each patient’s case. The goal is for the patients to understand the legal process sufficiently to be able to rationally consult with counsel and to be able to participate in their defense. The program consists of group class sessions and uses an assessment tool, consisting of one-hundred questions about the criminal process, to assist with a competency determination. At the evidentiary hearing Dr. Lewis testified that the main factor he considered in his opinion that Mr. Wesley has been restored to competency was that Mr. Wesley had recently demonstrated an increased knowledge of legal concepts and facts related to his charges. Dr. Lewis testified the hospital had recently increased the frequency of Mr. Wesley’s competency restoration sessions as compared to the prior evaluation review period. Dr. Lewis testified that Mr. Wesley is now able to discuss the evidence, facts and possible sentences of each of his cases individually. This is consistent with the restoration program’s records which show substantial progress being made in the restoration groups he has been participating in. Dr. Lewis testified regarding Mr. Wesley’s recent performance on the assessment tool. Below are examples of questions and responses given by Mr. Wesley noted during the hearing. 1. When asked whether he is obligated to accept a plea bargain Mr. Wesley responded, “Defendants have to take a plea bargain”. Dr. Lewis testified he did consider this significant as it relates to competency. 2. Mr. Wesley was unable to understand the difference between a sentence to jail and a prison sentence. Dr. Lewis testified he did not consider this significant. 3. When asked to explain what not guilty by reason of mental illness means Mr. Wesley responded, “Maybe I did it but they are going to drop the charges”. Dr. Wesley testified this response is inadequate but not significant. 4. Mr. Wesley was able to identify six basis rights rudimentarily. 5. Mr. Wesley answered one question, “If I plead not guilty the charge will be dropped”. 6. Mr. Wesley was not able to answer some questions without being given clues and took a significant amount of time to answer many questions. ===== PAGE 005/007 ===== 27-CR-17-8342 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 5/8/2020 3:54 PM Dr. Lewis agreed that Mr. Wesley still demonstrates some deficits as it relates to competency, but that based on the totality of the data he is now able to communicate rationally with counsel and participate in his defense, with the caveat that defense counsel is encouraged to use simple language to explain the legal concepts and to identify multiple ways to describe complicated legal concepts. Dr. Lewis wrote, “Put another way, the ‘legalese’ that a layman with no mental illness or intellectual deficits would find confusing will be particularly challenging for Mr. Wesley, but he has demonstrated the ability to participate meaningfully in his defense when the discourse is simplified.” Dr. Lewis also made an additional recommendation that the sign language interpreter have a CDI certification, which means that the interpreter is also deaf and familiar with deaf culture. This type of interpreter is considered more able to accurately interpret and communicate. Dr. Lewis testified that the last time he met with Mr. Wesley was in September but that the notes he reviewed regarding progress between October and February indicated he has not decompensated. He also testified that if Mr. Wesley were to stop taking the competency restoration classes he would likely regress to incompetency. At the evidentiary hearing attorney Susan Herlofsky testified that she is not the attorney of record for Mr. Wesley, but works at the public defender office with assigned counsel, Julius Nolen. She met with Mr. Wesley and assigned counsel prior to the hearing and sat at counsel table during the hearing. She testified in their conversation prior to the hearing Mr. Wesley did not understand what a trial was and was unable to understand the difference between a trial by jury and a court trial. He told defense counsel that he was proud that he “passed the test” at St. Peter hospital. Ms. Herlofsky testified at the end of the evidentiary hearing and stated that during the evidentiary hearing Mr. Wesley did not appear to understand the proceedings, had been unable to consult with counsel rationally or answer specific questions that counsel asked of him. Based on the totality of the above noted facts, the court finds that the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates Mr. Wesley is not able to rationally consult with counsel or participate in his defense. While Mr. Wesley has demonstrated a basic understanding of the facts of his case and the legal process during his competency classes, this understanding appears to be rudimentary and fleeting. The court does not find ===== PAGE 006/007 ===== 27-CR-17-8342 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 5/8/2020 3:54 PM that this evidence demonstrates a cognitive ability to understand the legal concepts. Rather, it appears Mr. Wesley has been able to memorize definitions and terms due to repetition as a result of the high frequency of the competency classes he attends. This finding is further supported by Dr. Lewis’s testimony that if Mr. Wesley were to discontinue competency restoration classes, he would likely soon regress to incompetency. In order to rationally consult with counsel and participate in his defense, a defendant must have the cognitive ability, after consulting with counsel, to make important decisions about whether to accept a plea bargain, whether to have a jury or court trial and whether or not to testify. These decisions regarding the waiver of constitutional rights must be made by a defendant himself, after consulting with counsel. The defendant’s attorney may not make these decisions for a defendant. While it appears Mr. Wesley now understands that he must behave properly in a courtroom setting and that he should follow the advice of counsel, simply indicating that he will “behave” in the courtroom and do what his lawyers tell him to do not establish that he is competent. His lack of understanding about whether he must accept a plea bargain and the difference between jail and prison is evidence that he is unable to participate in his defense. As noted by the psychologists, his cognitive impairments significantly interfere with his reasoning and decision making abilities. Most importantly, defense counsel’s testimony that during the evidentiary hearing he demonstrated a lack of understanding about what a trial was and did not have the ability to consult with counsel or participate in his defense solidifies the court’s conclusion that Mr. Wesley is incompetent. Finally, it is important to take into consideration the recommendations of Dr. Lewis regarding suggested accommodations that can be made to assist Mr. Wesley in understanding the proceedings. Dr. Lewis indicates that Mr. Wesley does not have the ability to understand the “legalese” that a typical layman defendant would comprehend. His suggestion that defense counsel allot more time than customary, use simple language and explain legal concepts in multiple ways is prudent and the court does believe that defense counsel can implement these strategies. However, under the facts of Mr. Wesley’s case, the court does not find that these accommodations are sufficient to render an otherwise incompetent defendant competent. Slowing down a legal proceeding by pausing or recessing to allow defense counsel to explain ===== PAGE 007/007 ===== 27-CR-17-8342 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 5/8/2020 3:54 PM every process, objection, argument or term used in witness testimony will not be sufficient to allow Mr. Wesley to comprehend the process, rationally consult with counsel and participate in his own defense. Dr. Lewis noted in his April 2019 evaluation that “if his competence-related deficits are primarily the result of intellectual deficits, his prognosis is likely to be poor.” The court finds that his competency related deficits are the result of his intellectual deficits. Although his factual understanding of his charges and the legal process has improved due to competency classes, the greater weight of the evidence does not establish that he has the rational ability to consult with counsel regarding trial strategy, make decisions regarding the waiver of constitutional rights and plea negotiations or otherwise participate in his defense. The state has not met its burden of proving, by greater weight of the evidence that Mr. Wesley is competent. Therefore the court finds that the defendant, Mr. Wesley, is INCOMPETENT. LKJ By the Court: Dated: 5/8/2020 ____________________________________ Lisa K. Janzen Judge of District Court ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-17-8342_Notice of Motion and Motion_2020-01-23_20240430093649.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-17-8342 defendant: ADRIAN MICHAEL WESLEY filing_type: Notice of Motion and Motion filing_date: 2020-01-23 pages: 002 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/002 ===== 27-CR-17-8342 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 1/23/2020 9:34 AM STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT State of Minnesota, STATE’S NOTICE OF MOTIONS Plaintiff, AND PRETRIAL MOTIONS vs. Court Case No. 27-CR-17-1555; 27-CR-17-22909; and 27-CR-17-8342 Adrian Michael Wesley, Defendant. TO: JUDGE OF DISTRICT COURT, ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT, and DEFENDANT. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the State hereby moves the Court for the following relief: For an Order directing the Forensic Mental Health Program in St. Peter to produce to Counsel copies of records relied upon in preparing the Competency Evaluation dated 10/1/2019, in the above-captioned matters. This request does not include police reports, court records, and previous competency evaluations as identified in lines 1-16 of the enumerated Information Sources section of the report, since Counsel already has access to those items. MOTION On October 2, 2019, a Competency Evaluation was filed in District Court relating to the above captioned cases. In that report, the Examiner, Dr. Jason Lewis, opined that Mr. Wesley has regained competency to proceed in this matter. Defendant has demanded a hearing to challenge that finding. The hearing is scheduled for February 10, 2020. The State has reached out to the forensic services division at the State Hospital in St. Peter to request copies of documents that Dr. Lewis relied upon in preparing the evaluation, and was advised that a Court Order would be required to release the records. Copies of these records are required to prepare for and proceed with the competency hearing. Therefore, the State requests that the Court enter an Order permitting release of the requested records to the parties in this matter. I have conferred with counsel for the Defense, Julius Nolen, and he does not object to this motion. Page 1 of 4 ===== PAGE 002/002 ===== 27-CR-17-8342 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 1/23/2020 9:34 AM Date: January 23, 2020 Respectfully submitted, MICHAEL O. FREEMAN Hennepin County Attorney Anna Petosky (#388163) Assistant County Attorney C2100 GOVERNMENT CENTER 300 SOUTH SIXTH STREET Minneapolis, MN 55487 Telephone: 612-348-4101 Page 2 of 4 ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-17-8342_Order-Other_2020-01-23_20240430093646.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-17-8342 defendant: ADRIAN MICHAEL WESLEY filing_type: Order-Other filing_date: 2020-01-23 pages: 002 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/002 ===== 27-CR-17-8342 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 1/23/2020 1:24 PM STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT State of Minnesota, FINDINGS AND ORDER Plaintiff, vs. Court Case No. 27-CR—1 7- 1 555; 27—CR—17-22909; and 27—CR~17—8342 Adrian Michael Wesley, Defendant. WHEREAS, the Court nds that: 1. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. 61 1.026 and Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 20.01, a Competency Hearing is scheduled for February 10, 2020, in the above matters. 2. The report and testimony of Dr. Jason Lewis om the Forensic Mental Health Program — St. Peter will be important pieces of evidence in that proceeding. 3. The requested records will assist in determining Whether Defendant has competency to proceed with criminal prosecution. 4. The public interest and the need for disclosure of the records in this case outweigh any possible injury to the patient, to the physician-patient relationship, and to the treatment services. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 1. Forensic Mental Health Program — St. Peter shall produce all sources of information referenced in Dr. Jason Lewis’s Competency Evaluation dated October 1, 201 9, including medical records and any collateral documentation, notes, and other information pertinent to the ndings therein. This order does not include documents which the parties already have access to, such as the police reports, court records, and prior competency evaluations (Information Sources 1- 16 referenced in the report). Forensic Mental Health Program — St. Peter shall provide this information within ten days of receiving this Order. Forensic Mental Health Program — St. Peter shall provide the documents either by hard copy or electronically to the following addresses: Anna Petosky Assistant Hennepin County Attorney HCAO Adult Prosecution Division, A2100 Page 3 of 4 ===== PAGE 002/002 ===== 27-CR-17-8342 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 1/23/2020 1:24 PM 300 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55487 Julius Nolen Assistant Hennepin County Public Defender 701 Fourth Ave. South, Suite 1400 Minneapolis, MN 5541 5—1600 BY THE COURT: ”swam ‘ ”MA Judge/of bistrict Court gm, Page 4 of 4 ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-17-8342_Proposed Order or Document_2020-01-23_20240430093647.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-17-8342 defendant: ADRIAN MICHAEL WESLEY filing_type: Proposed Order or Document filing_date: 2020-01-23 pages: 002 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/002 ===== 27-CR-17-8342 STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT State of Minnesota, FINDINGS AND ORDER Plaintiff, vs. Court Case No. 27-CR-17-1555; 27-CR-17-22909; and 27-CR-17-8342 Adrian Michael Wesley, Defendant. WHEREAS, the Court finds that: 1. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. 611.026 and Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 20.01, a Competency Hearing is scheduled for February 10, 2020, in the above matters. 2. The report and testimony of Dr. Jason Lewis from the Forensic Mental Health Program – St. Peter will be important pieces of evidence in that proceeding. 3. The requested records will assist in determining whether Defendant has competency to proceed with criminal prosecution. 4. The public interest and the need for disclosure of the records in this case outweigh any possible injury to the patient, to the physician-patient relationship, and to the treatment services. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 1. Forensic Mental Health Program – St. Peter shall produce all sources of information referenced in Dr. Jason Lewis’s Competency Evaluation dated October 1, 2019, including medical records and any collateral documentation, notes, and other information pertinent to the findings therein. This order does not include documents which the parties already have access to, such as the police reports, court records, and prior competency evaluations (Information Sources 1- 16 referenced in the report). 2. Forensic Mental Health Program – St. Peter shall provide this information within ten days of receiving this Order. 3. Forensic Mental Health Program – St. Peter shall provide the documents either by hard copy or electronically to the following addresses: Anna Petosky Assistant Hennepin County Attorney HCAO Adult Prosecution Division, A2100 Page 3 of 4 ===== PAGE 002/002 ===== 27-CR-17-8342 300 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55487 Julius Nolen Assistant Hennepin County Public Defender 701 Fourth Ave. South, Suite 1400 Minneapolis, MN 55415-1600 BY THE COURT: Judge of District Court Page 4 of 4 ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-18-18391_Amended Order_2019-10-04_20240430092800.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-18-18391 defendant: AESHA IBRAHIM OSMAN filing_type: Amended Order filing_date: 2019-10-04 pages: 001 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/001 ===== 27-CR-18-18391 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 10/4/2019 2:55 PM STATE OF MINNESOTA ‘ DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT State of Minnesota v. Aesha Ibrahim'Osman ORDER FOR CASE AMENDMENT Defendant Name: Aesha Ibrahim Osman Date of birth: 9/3/98 Case #: 27—CR—19—3539,‘ 27—CR—19—1916,‘ 27—CR—19-17539,‘ 27-CR—18-20198; 27—CR-18—l8391 Division/Location:Criminal - Downtown Offense: Assault — 4th degree; Assault — 5th degree; Disorderly Conduct Degree: Felony/ D Gross Misdemeanor/ D Misdemeanor/ D Petty Misdemeanor D Court Decision/Pfobation Amendment Other Case Amendment D Workhouse/Prison Amendment Amend as follows: Amend conditions of release to require no bail, and add that defendant must comply with her civil commitment (remain at adult foster care). AH other conditions remain the same. Reason: DHS release to adult foster care Defendant in custody: D No/ Yes at Facility: St. Peter Agency person notified: DHS notified byJudge Lamas Emailed to facility: D No/ Yes If furlough (check one): D Indefinite / D Definite — Date/Time: Transportation provided by: Probation officer of record: Phone: Amendment requested by: Amy Pletscher (law clerk) Phone: 612-596-7738 (probation officer/clerk preparingform) Amendment ordered by: /a -¢/- /7 District Courtédge/ // W/ _ Date One per case to be filed with Court Administration CC to probation / CC to agency HC 3821 (04/15) ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-18-18391_Correspondence for Judicial Approval_2020-06-04_20240430092750.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-18-18391 defendant: AESHA IBRAHIM OSMAN filing_type: Correspondence for Judicial Approval filing_date: 2020-06-04 pages: 002 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/002 ===== 27-CR-18-18391 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 6/4/2020 1:17 PM DIRECT CARE & TREATMENT – FORENSIC SERVICES June 4, 2020 The Honorable Lisa K. Janzen Judge of the Fourth Judicial District Court – Hennepin County 300 S 6th St Minneapolis, MN 55487 RE: State v. Aesha Ibrahim Osman, Rule 20.01, subd. 7 competency evaluation Court Files: 27-CR-19-3539, 27-CR-19-1916, 27-CR-19-17539, 27-CR-18-18391 Dear Judge Janzen, I am the Court Liaison for DHS Direct Care and Treatment- Forensic Services, and I write regarding the pending competency evaluation for the Defendant in the above-referenced cases. Defendant was found incompetent to participate in his defense under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 20.01 on February 26, 2019, and she was subsequently civilly committed. Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 20.01, subd. 7, provides in part that the head of the institution to which a defendant is committed must report to the court periodically, not less than six months, on the defendant’s mental condition with an opinion as to competency to proceed. The DHS Forensic Evaluation Department, on behalf of DHS and the head of the institution to which Defendant is committed, will be conducting the subd. 7 competency evaluation in this matter. Dr. Kristin Matson is assigned to conduct this evaluation. In order to provide a comprehensive evaluation, Dr. Matson will need to review records relating to clinical treatment Defendant has received or is receiving. State and federal data privacy laws do not allow Dr. Matson access to treatment records absent a court order. Defendant’s treatment records are relevant to Dr. Matson’s review and evaluation and will assist her in providing a more comprehensive opinion regarding Defendant’s current mental condition and competency status. For these reasons, I respectfully request that the attached proposed order for the release of medical records be signed and returned to me to allow the disclosure of treatment records to my office. Additionally, we request this language be included in all orders finding incompetence moving forward, as this would save time and resources for future subd. 7 competency evaluations completed by Forensic Services. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, Amanda Burg, Court Liaison, Forensic Mental Health Program Direct Care & Treatment - Forensic Services 1703 County Road 15 St. Peter, MN 56082 Phone: 507-933-5020 ===== PAGE 002/002 ===== 27-CR-18-18391 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 6/4/2020 1:17 PM Copies: Hennepin County Court Administration Elizabeth Rae Smith, Assistant Hennepin County Attorney Kathryn Luisa Hansel, Counsel for Aesha Ibrahim Osman ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-18-18391_Correspondence for Judicial Approval_2022-07-14_20240430092732.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-18-18391 defendant: AESHA IBRAHIM OSMAN filing_type: Correspondence for Judicial Approval filing_date: 2022-07-14 pages: 002 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/002 ===== 27-CR-18-18391 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 7/14/2022 10:49 AM DIRECT CARE & TREATMENT – FORENSIC SERVICES July 14, 2022 The Honorable Lisa K. Janzen Judge of the Fourth Judicial District Court – Hennepin County Hennepin County District Court Hennepin County Government Center 300 S. 6th St. Minneapolis, MN 55487 RE: State v. Aesha Ibrahim Osman, Rule 20.01, subd. 7 competency evaluation Court Files: 27-CR-18-18391; 27-CR-19-1916; 27-CR-19-3539; 27-CR-19-17539; Dear Judge Janzen, I am the Court Liaison for DHS Direct Care and Treatment- Forensic Services, and I write regarding continuing competency evaluations for the Defendant in the above-referenced case(s). The Defendant was found incompetent to participate in their defense under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 20.01 on 9/1/2021, and they were subsequently civilly committed. As announced in our notice to the Court on June 1, 2022, please be advised that the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department is able to conduct future competency evaluation(s) under Rule 20.01, subd. 7 in this matter. Costs for future continuing competency evaluations completed by the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department under Rule 20.01 would be charged to the Court pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 480.182 (4). If the Court would like the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department to conduct continuing competency evaluations in this matter, please appoint the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department to do so in the accompanying proposed order within 10 days from the date of this letter.1 The prompt issuance of an order appointing the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department will allow the agency to allocate resources appropriately for future evaluations. Please note that the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department will not conduct continuing competency evaluations in this matter absent an order appointing it to do so, even if the Defendant remains under civil commitment. Accompanying this letter is an order wherein the Court can appoint the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department to conduct the next continuing competency evaluation (meaning, a single competency evaluation under Rule 20.01, subd. 7), or ongoing continuing competency evaluations (meaning, until the Defendant is found competent, the Defendant is no longer under civil commitment, or upon further action by DHS or the Court). 1 Although DHS is not a party to the Defendant’s criminal proceedings and has not consented to be a party, DHS is offering to provide examination services to the Court in the Defendant’s criminal proceedings. 1 ===== PAGE 002/002 ===== 27-CR-18-18391 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 7/14/2022 10:49 AM Thank you for your attention to this correspondence. Please feel free to reach out to me with any questions you may have. Sincerely, Amanda Burg, Court Liaison Direct Care & Treatment - Forensic Services 100 Freeman Drive St. Peter, MN 56082 Phone: 507-985-2659 amanda.r.burg@state.mn.us Copies: Hennepin County Court Administration Prosecuting Attorney Criminal Defense Attorney 2 ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-18-19274_Correspondence for Judicial Approval_2019-09-05_20240430093102.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-18-19274 defendant: IFRAH ABDULL HASSAN filing_type: Correspondence for Judicial Approval filing_date: 2019-09-05 pages: 001 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/001 ===== 27-CR-1 8-1 9274 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 9/5/2019 9:57 AM m DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES DIRECT CARE & TREATMENT — FORENSIC SERVICES September 5, 2019 The Honorable Carolina Lamas Judge of the [Fourth] Judicial District Court — Hennepin County Hennepin County Government Center RE: State v. Ifrah Abdul] Hassan, Rule 20.01, subd. 7 competency evaluation Court Files: 27-CR-1 8- 1 9274 Dear Judge Lamas, I am the Forensic Coordinator for DHS Direct Care and Treatment- Forensic Services, and I write regarding the pending competency evaluation for the Defendant in the above-referenced cases. Defendant was found incompetent to participate in his defense under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 20.01 on 8/28/20 1 8, and he was subsequently civilly committed. Minnesota Rule 0f Criminal Procedure 20.0 1 subd. 7, provides , in part that the head of the institution to which a defendant is committed must report to the court periodically, not less than six months, 0n the defendant’s mental condition with an opinion as to competency t0 proceed. The DHS Forensic Evaluation Department, on behalf of DHS and the head of the institution to which Defendant is committed, will be conducting the subd. 7 competency evaluation in this matter. Dr. Jason Lewis is assigned to conduct this evaluation. As part of the evaluation, Dr. Lewis Will need to review any records relating to clinical treatment Defendant has received since his return to the community. Unfortunately, Minnesota and federal privacy law do not allow Dr. Lewis access t0 treatment records absent a court order under these circumstances. Defendant’s treatment records are relevant t0 Dr. Lewis’s review and evaluation and will assist him in providing a more comprehensive opinion regarding Defendant’s current mental condition and competency status. For these reasons, I respectfully request that the attached proposed order for the release 0f medical records be signed and returned t0 me t0 allow the disclosure 0f any treatment records to my office. Thank you for your consideration 0f this request. Sincerely, ' \Wéfifie/kx Kelly Bechen, Forensic Coordinator Direct Care & Treatment - Forensic Services 100 Freeman Drive St. Peter, MN 56082 Phone: 507—985—2007 Copies: Hennepin County Court Administration Hennepin, Assistant Hennepin County Attorney Lisa Skrzeczkoski Counsel for Ifrah Hassan ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-18-19274_Correspondence for Judicial Approval_2021-01-25_20240430093052.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-18-19274 defendant: IFRAH ABDULL HASSAN filing_type: Correspondence for Judicial Approval filing_date: 2021-01-25 pages: 002 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/002 ===== 27-CR-18-19274 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 1/25/2021 12:39 PM DIRECT CARE & TREATMENT – FORENSIC SERVICES January 25, 2021 The Honorable Lisa K. Janzen Judge of the Fourth Judicial District Court – Hennepin County Hennepin County Government Center 300 South 6th Street Minneapolis, MN 55487 RE: State v. Ifrah Abdullahi Hassan, Rule 20.01, subd. 7 competency evaluation Court Files: 27-CR-18-19274; 27-CR-20-423 Dear Judge Janzen, I am the Court Liaison for DHS Direct Care and Treatment- Forensic Services, and I write regarding the pending competency evaluation for the Defendant in the above-referenced cases. Defendant was found incompetent to participate in his defense under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 20.01 on February 18, 2020. Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 20.01, subd. 7, provides in part that the head of the institution to which a defendant is committed must report to the court periodically, not less than six months, on the defendant’s mental condition with an opinion as to competency to proceed. The DHS Forensic Evaluation Department, on behalf of DHS and the head of the institution to which Defendant is committed, will be conducting the subd. 7 competency evaluation in this matter. Dr. Stephanie Bruss is assigned to conduct this evaluation. In order to provide a comprehensive evaluation, Dr. Bruss will need to review records relating to clinical treatment Defendant has received or is receiving. State and federal data privacy laws do not allow Dr. Bruss access to treatment records absent a court order. Defendant’s treatment records are relevant to Dr. Bruss’s review and evaluation and will assist her in providing a more comprehensive opinion regarding Defendant’s current mental condition and competency status. For these reasons, I respectfully request that the attached proposed order for the release of medical records be signed and returned to me to allow the disclosure of treatment records to my office. Additionally, we request this language be included in all orders finding incompetence moving forward, as this would save time and resources for future subd. 7 competency evaluations completed by Forensic Services. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, Amanda Burg, Court Liaison, Forensic Mental Health Program Direct Care & Treatment - Forensic Services 1703 County Road 15 St. Peter, MN 56082 Phone: 507-933-5020 ===== PAGE 002/002 ===== 27-CR-18-19274 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 1/25/2021 12:39 PM Copies: Hennepin County Court Administration Andrew Johnson, Assistant Hennepin County Attorney Lisa Skrzeczkoski, Counsel for Ifrah Hassan ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-18-19274_Correspondence_2018-09-07_20240430093109.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-18-19274 defendant: IFRAH ABDULL HASSAN filing_type: Correspondence filing_date: 2018-09-07 pages: 001 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/001 ===== 27-CR-18-19274 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 9/7/2018 2:37 PM Date: September 7, 2018 TO: Hennepin County Court Administrator and Judge of Hennepin County Court This is t0 notify you 0f Ifrah Hassan’s admission t0 a Direct Care & Treatment facility 0n 9/7/18, t0 Unit Hickory, a locked unit. Ifrah Hassan appeared before your court on a criminal charge, Court File Number 27-CR-18-19274. She was found incompetent t0 stand trial and was referred for civil commitment under the provisions of Rule 20 ofthe MN Rules of Criminal Procedure. She was subsequently civilly committed to the Commissioner 0f Human Services as Mentally Ill. It is understood that if there are current criminal charges pending, the criminal court and the prosecuting attorney will be notified when this patient is deemed competent to continue these court proceedings. Before authorizing a proposed reduction in custody for Ifrah Hassan, the treatment team, 0n behalf 0f the Forensic Services Medical Director, will notify the criminal court and prosecuting attorney of the proposed plan. Ifthe Court requires approval before any reduction in custody, the approval 0f the Court Will be requested at that time. Reduction of custody means reduction in custody status 0r release and includes: a transfer from a secure treatment program t0 a non-secure treatment program; a discharge from a State Operated Services program; a provisional discharge under civil commitment; the authorization of therapeutic passes or other restrictions for custody reductions noted in Ifrah Hassan’s Court order. Patients civilly committed and after a finding of incompetency under Rule 20.01, subdivision 7, may, in limited circumstances, require staff supervised transport outside the facility for medical appointments or for discharge planning (if applicable). The criminal court and prosecuting attorney will not receive notice ofthese supervised transports. Should you have specific concerns regarding increased freedom of movement ofthis patient, please address them t0 me. Please respond in writing, or I can be reached at the phone number listed below. I will notify you if and When the patient is ready for any reduction in custody. By copy of this letter I am notifying the prosecuting attorney 0f this communication. Contact Information Name: Pam Toepper, Court Liaison Address: Competency Restoration Program 100 Freeman Drive, St. Peter MN 56082 Telephone: 507—933—5020 Fax: 651-43 1—7798 Copy: Medical Record ProsecutingAttorney DHs—6011 (09/17) ADMISSION NOTIFICATION FOR PERSONS SUBJECT TO CONTINUING CRIMINAL COURT SUPERVISION ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-18-19274_Correspondence_2018-12-12_20240430093108.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-18-19274 defendant: IFRAH ABDULL HASSAN filing_type: Correspondence filing_date: 2018-12-12 pages: 001 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/001 ===== 27-CR-18-19274 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 12/12/2018 10:38 AM DATE: 12/12/201 8 TO: The Honorable Carolina Lamas, Hennepin C0. Criminal Court RE: Hassan Ifrah 27-CR— 1 5-2265, 27-CR-1 8- 1 9274 Dear Judge Lamas: This is notification on behalf of Lisa Vanderveen-Nagel, Program Director, concerning Ifrah Hassan, Court file number 27- CR-15-2265, 27-CR-1 8-19274. Ifrah Hassan was found incompetent under Criminal Procedure Rule 20.01 subd. 7 and is currently civilly committed to the Commissioner of Human Services pursuant to the Civil Commitment and Treatment Act. Under Rule 20.01, subd. 7, “the court and the prosecutor must be notified of any proposed institutional transfer, partial institutionalization status, and any proposed termination, discharge, or provisional discharge of the civil commitment.” This is to inform you that Community Competency Restoration Program plans t0 take the following action: D Transfer above-named the from secure treatment program patient a non-secure program.to a treatment D Discharge above-named the from DCT program. patient a E discharge Provisionally above-named the under commitment patient community. Ms. Hassan no civil to the longer requires the level of care she is receiving in her current placement. We would like to Provisionally Discharge her t0 Olives Home, an adult foster care home in Brooklyn Center. D An authorization oftherapeutic passes. A reduction in custody restricted per Court order. Date of Court order: 8/28/1 8 This action Will go into effect 0n 0r after: 12/19/1 8 The Order dated 8/28/18 states that the court must approve any reduction in custody. Please respond to this notice of reduction in custody as soon as possible. Thank you. By copy of this letter, I am notifying the prosecuting attorney and defense attorney of this communication. Contact Information: Name: Pam Toepper, Court Liaison Address: Competency Restoration Program 100 Freeman Drive, St. Peter MN 56082 Telephone: 507-933-5020 I Fax: I 651-431-7798 Copy: Medical Record Prosecuting Attorney DHs—6012 (11/17) NOTIFICATION OF REDUCTION IN CUSTODY ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-19-12466_Correspondence for Judicial Approval_2022-11-07_20240430091822.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-19-12466 defendant: TERRELL JOHNSON filing_type: Correspondence for Judicial Approval filing_date: 2022-11-07 pages: 002 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/002 ===== 27-CR-19-12466 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 11/7/2022 1:37 PM DIRECT CARE & TREATMENT – FORENSIC SERVICES November 7, 2022 The Honorable Lisa K. Janzen Judge of the Fourth Judicial District Court – Hennepin County Hennepin County District Court Hennepin County Government Center 300 S. 6th St. Minneapolis, MN 55487 RE: State v. Johnson, Terrell Dannie, Rule 20.01, subd. 7 competency evaluation Court Files: 27-CR-19-12466, 27-CR-19-19606, 27-CR-20-8926, 27-CR-20-20037, 27-CR-21- 19552, 27-CR-21-23233, 27-CR-22-1165, 27-CR-22-390, 27-CR-21-21578; 27-CR-22-1187; 27-CR- 22-5745; 27-CR-22-4898 Dear Judge Janzen, I am the Court Liaison for DHS Direct Care and Treatment- Forensic Services, and I write regarding continuing competency evaluations for the Defendant in the above-referenced case(s). The Defendant was found incompetent to participate in their defense under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 20.01 and they are civilly committed. Please be advised that the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department is able to conduct future competency evaluation(s) under Rule 20.01, subd. 7 in this matter. Costs for future continuing competency evaluations completed by the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department under Rule 20.01 would be charged to the Court pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 480.182 (4). If the Court would like the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department to conduct continuing competency evaluations in this matter, please appoint the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department to do so in the accompanying proposed order within 10 days from the date of this letter.1 The prompt issuance of an order appointing the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department will allow the agency to allocate resources appropriately for future evaluations. Please note that the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department will not conduct continuing competency evaluations in this matter absent an order appointing it to do so, even if the Defendant remains under civil commitment. Please also note that if the Court appoints the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department to conduct continuing competency evaluations in this matter, the assigned Forensic Examiner will need to review records relating to treatment and services the Defendant has received and/or is receiving. The Defendant’s treatment and service records are relevant to the Forensic Examiner’s review and evaluation and will assist them in providing a more comprehensive opinion regarding the Defendant’s current mental condition and 1 Although DHS is not a party to the Defendant’s criminal proceedings and has not consented to be a party, DHS is offering to provide examination services to the Court in the Defendant’s criminal proceedings. 1 ===== PAGE 002/002 ===== 27-CR-19-12466 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 11/7/2022 1:37 PM competency status. State and federal data privacy laws do not allow DHS Forensic Examiners access to treatment and service records absent a court order or a signed release from the Defendant. Accompanying this letter is an order wherein the Court can appoint the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department to conduct the next continuing competency evaluation (meaning, a single competency evaluation under Rule 20.01, subd. 7), or ongoing continuing competency evaluations (meaning, until the Defendant is found competent, the Defendant is no longer under civil commitment, or upon further action by DHS or the Court). The accompanying order also contains language that will authorize the release of the Defendant’s relevant records to Forensic Services for the assigned Forensic Examiner’s review. Thank you for your attention to this correspondence. Please feel free to reach out to me with any questions you may have. Sincerely, Amanda Burg, Court Liaison Direct Care & Treatment - Forensic Services 100 Freeman Drive St. Peter, MN 56082 Phone: 507-985-2659 amanda.r.burg@state.mn.us Copies: Hennepin County Court Administration Prosecuting Attorney Criminal Defense Attorney 2 ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-19-17539_Amended Order_2019-10-04_20240430092001.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-19-17539 defendant: AESHA IBRAHIM OSMAN filing_type: Amended Order filing_date: 2019-10-04 pages: 001 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/001 ===== 27-CR-19-17539 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 10/4/2019 2:53 PM STATE OF MINNESOTA ‘ DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT State of Minnesota v. Aesha Ibrahim'Osman ORDER FOR CASE AMENDMENT Defendant Name: Aesha Ibrahim Osman Date of birth: 9/3/98 Case #: 27—CR—19—3539,‘ 27—CR—19—1916,‘ 27—CR—19-17539,‘ 27-CR—18-20198; 27—CR-18—l8391 Division/Location:Criminal - Downtown Offense: Assault — 4th degree; Assault — 5th degree; Disorderly Conduct Degree: Felony/ D Gross Misdemeanor/ D Misdemeanor/ D Petty Misdemeanor D Court Decision/Pfobation Amendment Other Case Amendment D Workhouse/Prison Amendment Amend as follows: Amend conditions of release to require no bail, and add that defendant must comply with her civil commitment (remain at adult foster care). AH other conditions remain the same. Reason: DHS release to adult foster care Defendant in custody: D No/ Yes at Facility: St. Peter Agency person notified: DHS notified byJudge Lamas Emailed to facility: D No/ Yes If furlough (check one): D Indefinite / D Definite — Date/Time: Transportation provided by: Probation officer of record: Phone: Amendment requested by: Amy Pletscher (law clerk) Phone: 612-596-7738 (probation officer/clerk preparingform) Amendment ordered by: /a -¢/- /7 District Courtédge/ // W/ _ Date One per case to be filed with Court Administration CC to probation / CC to agency HC 3821 (04/15) ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-19-17539_Correspondence for Judicial Approval_2020-06-04_20240430091958.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-19-17539 defendant: AESHA IBRAHIM OSMAN filing_type: Correspondence for Judicial Approval filing_date: 2020-06-04 pages: 002 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/002 ===== 27-CR-19-17539 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 6/4/2020 1:14 PM DIRECT CARE & TREATMENT – FORENSIC SERVICES June 4, 2020 The Honorable Lisa K. Janzen Judge of the Fourth Judicial District Court – Hennepin County 300 S 6th St Minneapolis, MN 55487 RE: State v. Aesha Ibrahim Osman, Rule 20.01, subd. 7 competency evaluation Court Files: 27-CR-19-3539, 27-CR-19-1916, 27-CR-19-17539, 27-CR-18-18391 Dear Judge Janzen, I am the Court Liaison for DHS Direct Care and Treatment- Forensic Services, and I write regarding the pending competency evaluation for the Defendant in the above-referenced cases. Defendant was found incompetent to participate in his defense under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 20.01 on February 26, 2019, and she was subsequently civilly committed. Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 20.01, subd. 7, provides in part that the head of the institution to which a defendant is committed must report to the court periodically, not less than six months, on the defendant’s mental condition with an opinion as to competency to proceed. The DHS Forensic Evaluation Department, on behalf of DHS and the head of the institution to which Defendant is committed, will be conducting the subd. 7 competency evaluation in this matter. Dr. Kristin Matson is assigned to conduct this evaluation. In order to provide a comprehensive evaluation, Dr. Matson will need to review records relating to clinical treatment Defendant has received or is receiving. State and federal data privacy laws do not allow Dr. Matson access to treatment records absent a court order. Defendant’s treatment records are relevant to Dr. Matson’s review and evaluation and will assist her in providing a more comprehensive opinion regarding Defendant’s current mental condition and competency status. For these reasons, I respectfully request that the attached proposed order for the release of medical records be signed and returned to me to allow the disclosure of treatment records to my office. Additionally, we request this language be included in all orders finding incompetence moving forward, as this would save time and resources for future subd. 7 competency evaluations completed by Forensic Services. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, Amanda Burg, Court Liaison, Forensic Mental Health Program Direct Care & Treatment - Forensic Services 1703 County Road 15 St. Peter, MN 56082 Phone: 507-933-5020 ===== PAGE 002/002 ===== 27-CR-19-17539 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 6/4/2020 1:14 PM Copies: Hennepin County Court Administration Elizabeth Rae Smith, Assistant Hennepin County Attorney Kathryn Luisa Hansel, Counsel for Aesha Ibrahim Osman ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-19-17539_Correspondence for Judicial Approval_2022-07-14_20240430091942.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-19-17539 defendant: AESHA IBRAHIM OSMAN filing_type: Correspondence for Judicial Approval filing_date: 2022-07-14 pages: 002 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/002 ===== 27-CR-19-17539 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 7/14/2022 10:56 AM DIRECT CARE & TREATMENT – FORENSIC SERVICES July 14, 2022 The Honorable Lisa K. Janzen Judge of the Fourth Judicial District Court – Hennepin County Hennepin County District Court Hennepin County Government Center 300 S. 6th St. Minneapolis, MN 55487 RE: State v. Aesha Ibrahim Osman, Rule 20.01, subd. 7 competency evaluation Court Files: 27-CR-18-18391; 27-CR-19-1916; 27-CR-19-3539; 27-CR-19-17539; Dear Judge Janzen, I am the Court Liaison for DHS Direct Care and Treatment- Forensic Services, and I write regarding continuing competency evaluations for the Defendant in the above-referenced case(s). The Defendant was found incompetent to participate in their defense under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 20.01 on 9/1/2021, and they were subsequently civilly committed. As announced in our notice to the Court on June 1, 2022, please be advised that the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department is able to conduct future competency evaluation(s) under Rule 20.01, subd. 7 in this matter. Costs for future continuing competency evaluations completed by the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department under Rule 20.01 would be charged to the Court pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 480.182 (4). If the Court would like the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department to conduct continuing competency evaluations in this matter, please appoint the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department to do so in the accompanying proposed order within 10 days from the date of this letter.1 The prompt issuance of an order appointing the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department will allow the agency to allocate resources appropriately for future evaluations. Please note that the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department will not conduct continuing competency evaluations in this matter absent an order appointing it to do so, even if the Defendant remains under civil commitment. Accompanying this letter is an order wherein the Court can appoint the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department to conduct the next continuing competency evaluation (meaning, a single competency evaluation under Rule 20.01, subd. 7), or ongoing continuing competency evaluations (meaning, until the Defendant is found competent, the Defendant is no longer under civil commitment, or upon further action by DHS or the Court). 1 Although DHS is not a party to the Defendant’s criminal proceedings and has not consented to be a party, DHS is offering to provide examination services to the Court in the Defendant’s criminal proceedings. 1 ===== PAGE 002/002 ===== 27-CR-19-17539 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 7/14/2022 10:56 AM Thank you for your attention to this correspondence. Please feel free to reach out to me with any questions you may have. Sincerely, Amanda Burg, Court Liaison Direct Care & Treatment - Forensic Services 100 Freeman Drive St. Peter, MN 56082 Phone: 507-985-2659 amanda.r.burg@state.mn.us Copies: Hennepin County Court Administration Prosecuting Attorney Criminal Defense Attorney 2 ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-19-1916_Amended Order_2019-10-04_20240430091244.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-19-1916 defendant: AESHA IBRAHIM OSMAN filing_type: Amended Order filing_date: 2019-10-04 pages: 001 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/001 ===== 27-CR-19-1916 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 10/4/2019 2:51 PM STATE OF MINNESOTA ‘ DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT State of Minnesota v. Aesha Ibrahim'Osman ORDER FOR CASE AMENDMENT Defendant Name: Aesha Ibrahim Osman Date of birth: 9/3/98 Case #: 27—CR—19—3539,‘ 27—CR—19—1916,‘ 27—CR—19-17539,‘ 27-CR—18-20198; 27—CR-18—l8391 Division/Location:Criminal - Downtown Offense: Assault — 4th degree; Assault — 5th degree; Disorderly Conduct Degree: Felony/ D Gross Misdemeanor/ D Misdemeanor/ D Petty Misdemeanor D Court Decision/Pfobation Amendment Other Case Amendment D Workhouse/Prison Amendment Amend as follows: Amend conditions of release to require no bail, and add that defendant must comply with her civil commitment (remain at adult foster care). AH other conditions remain the same. Reason: DHS release to adult foster care Defendant in custody: D No/ Yes at Facility: St. Peter Agency person notified: DHS notified byJudge Lamas Emailed to facility: D No/ Yes If furlough (check one): D Indefinite / D Definite — Date/Time: Transportation provided by: Probation officer of record: Phone: Amendment requested by: Amy Pletscher (law clerk) Phone: 612-596-7738 (probation officer/clerk preparingform) Amendment ordered by: /a -¢/- /7 District Courtédge/ // W/ _ Date One per case to be filed with Court Administration CC to probation / CC to agency HC 3821 (04/15) ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-19-1916_Correspondence for Judicial Approval_2020-06-04_20240430091240.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-19-1916 defendant: AESHA IBRAHIM OSMAN filing_type: Correspondence for Judicial Approval filing_date: 2020-06-04 pages: 002 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/002 ===== 27-CR-19-1916 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 6/4/2020 1:09 PM DIRECT CARE & TREATMENT – FORENSIC SERVICES June 4, 2020 The Honorable Lisa K. Janzen Judge of the Fourth Judicial District Court – Hennepin County 300 S 6th St Minneapolis, MN 55487 RE: State v. Aesha Ibrahim Osman, Rule 20.01, subd. 7 competency evaluation Court Files: 27-CR-19-3539, 27-CR-19-1916, 27-CR-19-17539, 27-CR-18-18391 Dear Judge Janzen, I am the Court Liaison for DHS Direct Care and Treatment- Forensic Services, and I write regarding the pending competency evaluation for the Defendant in the above-referenced cases. Defendant was found incompetent to participate in his defense under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 20.01 on February 26, 2019, and she was subsequently civilly committed. Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 20.01, subd. 7, provides in part that the head of the institution to which a defendant is committed must report to the court periodically, not less than six months, on the defendant’s mental condition with an opinion as to competency to proceed. The DHS Forensic Evaluation Department, on behalf of DHS and the head of the institution to which Defendant is committed, will be conducting the subd. 7 competency evaluation in this matter. Dr. Kristin Matson is assigned to conduct this evaluation. In order to provide a comprehensive evaluation, Dr. Matson will need to review records relating to clinical treatment Defendant has received or is receiving. State and federal data privacy laws do not allow Dr. Matson access to treatment records absent a court order. Defendant’s treatment records are relevant to Dr. Matson’s review and evaluation and will assist her in providing a more comprehensive opinion regarding Defendant’s current mental condition and competency status. For these reasons, I respectfully request that the attached proposed order for the release of medical records be signed and returned to me to allow the disclosure of treatment records to my office. Additionally, we request this language be included in all orders finding incompetence moving forward, as this would save time and resources for future subd. 7 competency evaluations completed by Forensic Services. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, Amanda Burg, Court Liaison, Forensic Mental Health Program Direct Care & Treatment - Forensic Services 1703 County Road 15 St. Peter, MN 56082 Phone: 507-933-5020 ===== PAGE 002/002 ===== 27-CR-19-1916 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 6/4/2020 1:09 PM Copies: Hennepin County Court Administration Elizabeth Rae Smith, Assistant Hennepin County Attorney Kathryn Luisa Hansel, Counsel for Aesha Ibrahim Osman ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-19-1916_Correspondence for Judicial Approval_2022-07-14_20240430091224.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-19-1916 defendant: AESHA IBRAHIM OSMAN filing_type: Correspondence for Judicial Approval filing_date: 2022-07-14 pages: 002 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/002 ===== 27-CR-19-1916 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 7/14/2022 10:51 AM DIRECT CARE & TREATMENT – FORENSIC SERVICES July 14, 2022 The Honorable Lisa K. Janzen Judge of the Fourth Judicial District Court – Hennepin County Hennepin County District Court Hennepin County Government Center 300 S. 6th St. Minneapolis, MN 55487 RE: State v. Aesha Ibrahim Osman, Rule 20.01, subd. 7 competency evaluation Court Files: 27-CR-18-18391; 27-CR-19-1916; 27-CR-19-3539; 27-CR-19-17539; Dear Judge Janzen, I am the Court Liaison for DHS Direct Care and Treatment- Forensic Services, and I write regarding continuing competency evaluations for the Defendant in the above-referenced case(s). The Defendant was found incompetent to participate in their defense under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 20.01 on 9/1/2021, and they were subsequently civilly committed. As announced in our notice to the Court on June 1, 2022, please be advised that the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department is able to conduct future competency evaluation(s) under Rule 20.01, subd. 7 in this matter. Costs for future continuing competency evaluations completed by the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department under Rule 20.01 would be charged to the Court pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 480.182 (4). If the Court would like the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department to conduct continuing competency evaluations in this matter, please appoint the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department to do so in the accompanying proposed order within 10 days from the date of this letter.1 The prompt issuance of an order appointing the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department will allow the agency to allocate resources appropriately for future evaluations. Please note that the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department will not conduct continuing competency evaluations in this matter absent an order appointing it to do so, even if the Defendant remains under civil commitment. Accompanying this letter is an order wherein the Court can appoint the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department to conduct the next continuing competency evaluation (meaning, a single competency evaluation under Rule 20.01, subd. 7), or ongoing continuing competency evaluations (meaning, until the Defendant is found competent, the Defendant is no longer under civil commitment, or upon further action by DHS or the Court). 1 Although DHS is not a party to the Defendant’s criminal proceedings and has not consented to be a party, DHS is offering to provide examination services to the Court in the Defendant’s criminal proceedings. 1 ===== PAGE 002/002 ===== 27-CR-19-1916 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 7/14/2022 10:51 AM Thank you for your attention to this correspondence. Please feel free to reach out to me with any questions you may have. Sincerely, Amanda Burg, Court Liaison Direct Care & Treatment - Forensic Services 100 Freeman Drive St. Peter, MN 56082 Phone: 507-985-2659 amanda.r.burg@state.mn.us Copies: Hennepin County Court Administration Prosecuting Attorney Criminal Defense Attorney 2 ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-19-19606_Correspondence for Judicial Approval_2022-11-07_20240430092040.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-19-19606 defendant: TERRELL JOHNSON filing_type: Correspondence for Judicial Approval filing_date: 2022-11-07 pages: 002 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/002 ===== 27-CR-19-19606 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 11/7/2022 1:40 PM DIRECT CARE & TREATMENT – FORENSIC SERVICES November 7, 2022 The Honorable Lisa K. Janzen Judge of the Fourth Judicial District Court – Hennepin County Hennepin County District Court Hennepin County Government Center 300 S. 6th St. Minneapolis, MN 55487 RE: State v. Johnson, Terrell Dannie, Rule 20.01, subd. 7 competency evaluation Court Files: 27-CR-19-12466, 27-CR-19-19606, 27-CR-20-8926, 27-CR-20-20037, 27-CR-21- 19552, 27-CR-21-23233, 27-CR-22-1165, 27-CR-22-390, 27-CR-21-21578; 27-CR-22-1187; 27-CR- 22-5745; 27-CR-22-4898 Dear Judge Janzen, I am the Court Liaison for DHS Direct Care and Treatment- Forensic Services, and I write regarding continuing competency evaluations for the Defendant in the above-referenced case(s). The Defendant was found incompetent to participate in their defense under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 20.01 and they are civilly committed. Please be advised that the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department is able to conduct future competency evaluation(s) under Rule 20.01, subd. 7 in this matter. Costs for future continuing competency evaluations completed by the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department under Rule 20.01 would be charged to the Court pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 480.182 (4). If the Court would like the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department to conduct continuing competency evaluations in this matter, please appoint the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department to do so in the accompanying proposed order within 10 days from the date of this letter.1 The prompt issuance of an order appointing the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department will allow the agency to allocate resources appropriately for future evaluations. Please note that the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department will not conduct continuing competency evaluations in this matter absent an order appointing it to do so, even if the Defendant remains under civil commitment. Please also note that if the Court appoints the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department to conduct continuing competency evaluations in this matter, the assigned Forensic Examiner will need to review records relating to treatment and services the Defendant has received and/or is receiving. The Defendant’s treatment and service records are relevant to the Forensic Examiner’s review and evaluation and will assist them in providing a more comprehensive opinion regarding the Defendant’s current mental condition and 1 Although DHS is not a party to the Defendant’s criminal proceedings and has not consented to be a party, DHS is offering to provide examination services to the Court in the Defendant’s criminal proceedings. 1 ===== PAGE 002/002 ===== 27-CR-19-19606 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 11/7/2022 1:40 PM competency status. State and federal data privacy laws do not allow DHS Forensic Examiners access to treatment and service records absent a court order or a signed release from the Defendant. Accompanying this letter is an order wherein the Court can appoint the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department to conduct the next continuing competency evaluation (meaning, a single competency evaluation under Rule 20.01, subd. 7), or ongoing continuing competency evaluations (meaning, until the Defendant is found competent, the Defendant is no longer under civil commitment, or upon further action by DHS or the Court). The accompanying order also contains language that will authorize the release of the Defendant’s relevant records to Forensic Services for the assigned Forensic Examiner’s review. Thank you for your attention to this correspondence. Please feel free to reach out to me with any questions you may have. Sincerely, Amanda Burg, Court Liaison Direct Care & Treatment - Forensic Services 100 Freeman Drive St. Peter, MN 56082 Phone: 507-985-2659 amanda.r.burg@state.mn.us Copies: Hennepin County Court Administration Prosecuting Attorney Criminal Defense Attorney 2 ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-19-28883_Correspondence for Judicial Approval_2022-09-14_20240430092347.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-19-28883 defendant: JACOB MAMAR JOHNSON filing_type: Correspondence for Judicial Approval filing_date: 2022-09-14 pages: 002 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/002 ===== 27-CR-19-28883 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 9/14/2022 2:17 PM DIRECT CARE & TREATMENT – FORENSIC SERVICES September 14, 2022 The Honorable Lisa K. Janzen Judge of the Fourth Judicial District Court – Hennepin County Hennepin County District Court Hennepin County Government Center 300 S. 6th St. Minneapolis, MN 55487 RE: State v. Jacob Mamar Johnson, Rule 20.01, subd. 7 competency evaluation Court Files: 27-CR-18-2728, 27-CR-19-28883, 27-CR-21-4207, 27-CR-21-13795, 27-CR-21-4954 Dear Judge Janzen, I am the Court Liaison for DHS Direct Care and Treatment- Forensic Services, and I write regarding continuing competency evaluations for the Defendant in the above-referenced case(s). The Defendant was found incompetent to participate in their defense under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 20.01 on 2/1/2022, and they were subsequently civilly committed. Please be advised that the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department is able to conduct future competency evaluation(s) under Rule 20.01, subd. 7 in this matter. Costs for future continuing competency evaluations completed by the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department under Rule 20.01 would be charged to the Court pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 480.182 (4). If the Court would like the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department to conduct continuing competency evaluations in this matter, please appoint the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department to do so in the accompanying proposed order within 10 days from the date of this letter.1 The prompt issuance of an order appointing the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department will allow the agency to allocate resources appropriately for future evaluations. Please note that the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department will not conduct continuing competency evaluations in this matter absent an order appointing it to do so, even if the Defendant remains under civil commitment. Please also note that if the Court appoints the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department to conduct continuing competency evaluations in this matter, the assigned Forensic Examiner will need to review records relating to treatment and services the Defendant has received and/or is receiving. The Defendant’s treatment and service records are relevant to the Forensic Examiner’s review and evaluation and will assist them in providing a more comprehensive opinion regarding the Defendant’s current mental condition and competency status. State and federal data privacy laws do not allow DHS Forensic Examiners access to treatment and service records absent a court order or a signed release from the Defendant. 1 Although DHS is not a party to the Defendant’s criminal proceedings and has not consented to be a party, DHS is offering to provide examination services to the Court in the Defendant’s criminal proceedings. 1 ===== PAGE 002/002 ===== 27-CR-19-28883 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 9/14/2022 2:17 PM Accompanying this letter is an order wherein the Court can appoint the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department to conduct the next continuing competency evaluation (meaning, a single competency evaluation under Rule 20.01, subd. 7), or ongoing continuing competency evaluations (meaning, until the Defendant is found competent, the Defendant is no longer under civil commitment, or upon further action by DHS or the Court). The accompanying order also contains language that will authorize the release of the Defendant’s relevant records to Forensic Services for the assigned Forensic Examiner’s review. Thank you for your attention to this correspondence. Please feel free to reach out to me with any questions you may have. Sincerely, Amanda Burg, Court Liaison Direct Care & Treatment - Forensic Services 100 Freeman Drive St. Peter, MN 56082 Phone: 507-985-2659 amanda.r.burg@state.mn.us Copies: Hennepin County Court Administration Prosecuting Attorney Criminal Defense Attorney 2 ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-19-3539_Amended Order_2019-10-04_20240430091355.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-19-3539 defendant: AESHA IBRAHIM OSMAN filing_type: Amended Order filing_date: 2019-10-04 pages: 001 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/001 ===== 27-CR-19-3539 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 10/4/2019 2:50 PM STATE OF MINNESOTA ‘ DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT State of Minnesota v. Aesha Ibrahim'Osman ORDER FOR CASE AMENDMENT Defendant Name: Aesha Ibrahim Osman Date of birth: 9/3/98 Case #: 27—CR—19—3539,‘ 27—CR—19—1916,‘ 27—CR—19-17539,‘ 27-CR—18-20198; 27—CR-18—l8391 Division/Location:Criminal - Downtown Offense: Assault — 4th degree; Assault — 5th degree; Disorderly Conduct Degree: Felony/ D Gross Misdemeanor/ D Misdemeanor/ D Petty Misdemeanor D Court Decision/Pfobation Amendment Other Case Amendment D Workhouse/Prison Amendment Amend as follows: Amend conditions of release to require no bail, and add that defendant must comply with her civil commitment (remain at adult foster care). AH other conditions remain the same. Reason: DHS release to adult foster care Defendant in custody: D No/ Yes at Facility: St. Peter Agency person notified: DHS notified byJudge Lamas Emailed to facility: D No/ Yes If furlough (check one): D Indefinite / D Definite — Date/Time: Transportation provided by: Probation officer of record: Phone: Amendment requested by: Amy Pletscher (law clerk) Phone: 612-596-7738 (probation officer/clerk preparingform) Amendment ordered by: /a -¢/- /7 District Courtédge/ // W/ _ Date One per case to be filed with Court Administration CC to probation / CC to agency HC 3821 (04/15) ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-19-3539_Correspondence for Judicial Approval_2020-06-04_20240430091351.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-19-3539 defendant: AESHA IBRAHIM OSMAN filing_type: Correspondence for Judicial Approval filing_date: 2020-06-04 pages: 002 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/002 ===== 27-CR-19-3539 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 6/4/2020 1:06 PM DIRECT CARE & TREATMENT – FORENSIC SERVICES June 4, 2020 The Honorable Lisa K. Janzen Judge of the Fourth Judicial District Court – Hennepin County 300 S 6th St Minneapolis, MN 55487 RE: State v. Aesha Ibrahim Osman, Rule 20.01, subd. 7 competency evaluation Court Files: 27-CR-19-3539, 27-CR-19-1916, 27-CR-19-17539, 27-CR-18-18391 Dear Judge Janzen, I am the Court Liaison for DHS Direct Care and Treatment- Forensic Services, and I write regarding the pending competency evaluation for the Defendant in the above-referenced cases. Defendant was found incompetent to participate in his defense under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 20.01 on February 26, 2019, and she was subsequently civilly committed. Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 20.01, subd. 7, provides in part that the head of the institution to which a defendant is committed must report to the court periodically, not less than six months, on the defendant’s mental condition with an opinion as to competency to proceed. The DHS Forensic Evaluation Department, on behalf of DHS and the head of the institution to which Defendant is committed, will be conducting the subd. 7 competency evaluation in this matter. Dr. Kristin Matson is assigned to conduct this evaluation. In order to provide a comprehensive evaluation, Dr. Matson will need to review records relating to clinical treatment Defendant has received or is receiving. State and federal data privacy laws do not allow Dr. Matson access to treatment records absent a court order. Defendant’s treatment records are relevant to Dr. Matson’s review and evaluation and will assist her in providing a more comprehensive opinion regarding Defendant’s current mental condition and competency status. For these reasons, I respectfully request that the attached proposed order for the release of medical records be signed and returned to me to allow the disclosure of treatment records to my office. Additionally, we request this language be included in all orders finding incompetence moving forward, as this would save time and resources for future subd. 7 competency evaluations completed by Forensic Services. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, Amanda Burg, Court Liaison, Forensic Mental Health Program Direct Care & Treatment - Forensic Services 1703 County Road 15 St. Peter, MN 56082 Phone: 507-933-5020 ===== PAGE 002/002 ===== 27-CR-19-3539 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 6/4/2020 1:06 PM Copies: Hennepin County Court Administration Elizabeth Rae Smith, Assistant Hennepin County Attorney Kathryn Luisa Hansel, Counsel for Aesha Ibrahim Osman ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-19-3539_Correspondence for Judicial Approval_2022-07-14_20240430091335.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-19-3539 defendant: AESHA IBRAHIM OSMAN filing_type: Correspondence for Judicial Approval filing_date: 2022-07-14 pages: 002 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/002 ===== 27-CR-19-3539 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 7/14/2022 10:54 AM DIRECT CARE & TREATMENT – FORENSIC SERVICES July 14, 2022 The Honorable Lisa K. Janzen Judge of the Fourth Judicial District Court – Hennepin County Hennepin County District Court Hennepin County Government Center 300 S. 6th St. Minneapolis, MN 55487 RE: State v. Aesha Ibrahim Osman, Rule 20.01, subd. 7 competency evaluation Court Files: 27-CR-18-18391; 27-CR-19-1916; 27-CR-19-3539; 27-CR-19-17539; Dear Judge Janzen, I am the Court Liaison for DHS Direct Care and Treatment- Forensic Services, and I write regarding continuing competency evaluations for the Defendant in the above-referenced case(s). The Defendant was found incompetent to participate in their defense under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 20.01 on 9/1/2021, and they were subsequently civilly committed. As announced in our notice to the Court on June 1, 2022, please be advised that the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department is able to conduct future competency evaluation(s) under Rule 20.01, subd. 7 in this matter. Costs for future continuing competency evaluations completed by the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department under Rule 20.01 would be charged to the Court pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 480.182 (4). If the Court would like the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department to conduct continuing competency evaluations in this matter, please appoint the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department to do so in the accompanying proposed order within 10 days from the date of this letter.1 The prompt issuance of an order appointing the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department will allow the agency to allocate resources appropriately for future evaluations. Please note that the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department will not conduct continuing competency evaluations in this matter absent an order appointing it to do so, even if the Defendant remains under civil commitment. Accompanying this letter is an order wherein the Court can appoint the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department to conduct the next continuing competency evaluation (meaning, a single competency evaluation under Rule 20.01, subd. 7), or ongoing continuing competency evaluations (meaning, until the Defendant is found competent, the Defendant is no longer under civil commitment, or upon further action by DHS or the Court). 1 Although DHS is not a party to the Defendant’s criminal proceedings and has not consented to be a party, DHS is offering to provide examination services to the Court in the Defendant’s criminal proceedings. 1 ===== PAGE 002/002 ===== 27-CR-19-3539 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 7/14/2022 10:54 AM Thank you for your attention to this correspondence. Please feel free to reach out to me with any questions you may have. Sincerely, Amanda Burg, Court Liaison Direct Care & Treatment - Forensic Services 100 Freeman Drive St. Peter, MN 56082 Phone: 507-985-2659 amanda.r.burg@state.mn.us Copies: Hennepin County Court Administration Prosecuting Attorney Criminal Defense Attorney 2 ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-20-20037_Correspondence for Judicial Approval_2022-11-07_20240430090138.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-20-20037 defendant: TERRELL JOHNSON filing_type: Correspondence for Judicial Approval filing_date: 2022-11-07 pages: 002 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/002 ===== 27-CR-20-20037 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 11/7/2022 1:45 PM DIRECT CARE & TREATMENT – FORENSIC SERVICES November 7, 2022 The Honorable Lisa K. Janzen Judge of the Fourth Judicial District Court – Hennepin County Hennepin County District Court Hennepin County Government Center 300 S. 6th St. Minneapolis, MN 55487 RE: State v. Johnson, Terrell Dannie, Rule 20.01, subd. 7 competency evaluation Court Files: 27-CR-19-12466, 27-CR-19-19606, 27-CR-20-8926, 27-CR-20-20037, 27-CR-21- 19552, 27-CR-21-23233, 27-CR-22-1165, 27-CR-22-390, 27-CR-21-21578; 27-CR-22-1187; 27-CR- 22-5745; 27-CR-22-4898 Dear Judge Janzen, I am the Court Liaison for DHS Direct Care and Treatment- Forensic Services, and I write regarding continuing competency evaluations for the Defendant in the above-referenced case(s). The Defendant was found incompetent to participate in their defense under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 20.01 and they are civilly committed. Please be advised that the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department is able to conduct future competency evaluation(s) under Rule 20.01, subd. 7 in this matter. Costs for future continuing competency evaluations completed by the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department under Rule 20.01 would be charged to the Court pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 480.182 (4). If the Court would like the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department to conduct continuing competency evaluations in this matter, please appoint the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department to do so in the accompanying proposed order within 10 days from the date of this letter.1 The prompt issuance of an order appointing the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department will allow the agency to allocate resources appropriately for future evaluations. Please note that the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department will not conduct continuing competency evaluations in this matter absent an order appointing it to do so, even if the Defendant remains under civil commitment. Please also note that if the Court appoints the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department to conduct continuing competency evaluations in this matter, the assigned Forensic Examiner will need to review records relating to treatment and services the Defendant has received and/or is receiving. The Defendant’s treatment and service records are relevant to the Forensic Examiner’s review and evaluation and will assist them in providing a more comprehensive opinion regarding the Defendant’s current mental condition and 1 Although DHS is not a party to the Defendant’s criminal proceedings and has not consented to be a party, DHS is offering to provide examination services to the Court in the Defendant’s criminal proceedings. 1 ===== PAGE 002/002 ===== 27-CR-20-20037 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 11/7/2022 1:45 PM competency status. State and federal data privacy laws do not allow DHS Forensic Examiners access to treatment and service records absent a court order or a signed release from the Defendant. Accompanying this letter is an order wherein the Court can appoint the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department to conduct the next continuing competency evaluation (meaning, a single competency evaluation under Rule 20.01, subd. 7), or ongoing continuing competency evaluations (meaning, until the Defendant is found competent, the Defendant is no longer under civil commitment, or upon further action by DHS or the Court). The accompanying order also contains language that will authorize the release of the Defendant’s relevant records to Forensic Services for the assigned Forensic Examiner’s review. Thank you for your attention to this correspondence. Please feel free to reach out to me with any questions you may have. Sincerely, Amanda Burg, Court Liaison Direct Care & Treatment - Forensic Services 100 Freeman Drive St. Peter, MN 56082 Phone: 507-985-2659 amanda.r.burg@state.mn.us Copies: Hennepin County Court Administration Prosecuting Attorney Criminal Defense Attorney 2 ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-20-26577_Correspondence for Judicial Approval_2022-10-26_20240430090613.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-20-26577 defendant: Rasheed Richardson filing_type: Correspondence for Judicial Approval filing_date: 2022-10-26 pages: 002 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/002 ===== 27-CR-20-26577 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 10/26/2022 2:03 PM DIRECT CARE & TREATMENT – FORENSIC SERVICES October 26, 2022 The Honorable Lisa K. Janzen Judge of the Fourth Judicial District Court – Hennepin County Hennepin County District Court Hennepin County Government Center 300 S. 6th St. Minneapolis, MN 55487 RE: State v. Rasheed Richardson Rule 20.01, subd. 7 competency evaluation Court Files: 27-CR-20-26577 Dear Judge Janzen, I am the Court Liaison for DHS Direct Care and Treatment- Forensic Services, and I write regarding continuing competency evaluations for the Defendant in the above-referenced case(s). The Defendant was found incompetent to participate in their defense under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 20.01 on 1/4/2022, and they were subsequently civilly committed. Please be advised that the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department is able to conduct future competency evaluation(s) under Rule 20.01, subd. 7 in this matter. Costs for future continuing competency evaluations completed by the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department under Rule 20.01 would be charged to the Court pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 480.182 (4). If the Court would like the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department to conduct continuing competency evaluations in this matter, please appoint the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department to do so in the accompanying proposed order within 10 days from the date of this letter.1 The prompt issuance of an order appointing the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department will allow the agency to allocate resources appropriately for future evaluations. Please note that the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department will not conduct continuing competency evaluations in this matter absent an order appointing it to do so, even if the Defendant remains under civil commitment. Please also note that if the Court appoints the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department to conduct continuing competency evaluations in this matter, the assigned Forensic Examiner will need to review records relating to treatment and services the Defendant has received and/or is receiving. The Defendant’s treatment and service records are relevant to the Forensic Examiner’s review and evaluation and will assist them in providing a more comprehensive opinion regarding the Defendant’s current mental condition and competency status. State and federal data privacy laws do not allow DHS Forensic Examiners access to treatment and service records absent a court order or a signed release from the Defendant. 1 Although DHS is not a party to the Defendant’s criminal proceedings and has not consented to be a party, DHS is offering to provide examination services to the Court in the Defendant’s criminal proceedings. 1 ===== PAGE 002/002 ===== 27-CR-20-26577 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 10/26/2022 2:03 PM Accompanying this letter is an order wherein the Court can appoint the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department to conduct the next continuing competency evaluation (meaning, a single competency evaluation under Rule 20.01, subd. 7), or ongoing continuing competency evaluations (meaning, until the Defendant is found competent, the Defendant is no longer under civil commitment, or upon further action by DHS or the Court). The accompanying order also contains language that will authorize the release of the Defendant’s relevant records to Forensic Services for the assigned Forensic Examiner’s review. Thank you for your attention to this correspondence. Please feel free to reach out to me with any questions you may have. Sincerely, Amanda Burg, Court Liaison Direct Care & Treatment - Forensic Services 100 Freeman Drive St. Peter, MN 56082 Phone: 507-985-2659 amanda.r.burg@state.mn.us Copies: Hennepin County Court Administration Prosecuting Attorney Criminal Defense Attorney 2 ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-20-423_Correspondence for Judicial Approval_2021-01-25_20240430084817.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-20-423 defendant: Ifrah Abdullahi Hassan filing_type: Correspondence for Judicial Approval filing_date: 2021-01-25 pages: 002 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/002 ===== 27-CR-20-423 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 1/25/2021 12:40 PM DIRECT CARE & TREATMENT – FORENSIC SERVICES January 25, 2021 The Honorable Lisa K. Janzen Judge of the Fourth Judicial District Court – Hennepin County Hennepin County Government Center 300 South 6th Street Minneapolis, MN 55487 RE: State v. Ifrah Abdullahi Hassan, Rule 20.01, subd. 7 competency evaluation Court Files: 27-CR-18-19274; 27-CR-20-423 Dear Judge Janzen, I am the Court Liaison for DHS Direct Care and Treatment- Forensic Services, and I write regarding the pending competency evaluation for the Defendant in the above-referenced cases. Defendant was found incompetent to participate in his defense under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 20.01 on February 18, 2020. Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 20.01, subd. 7, provides in part that the head of the institution to which a defendant is committed must report to the court periodically, not less than six months, on the defendant’s mental condition with an opinion as to competency to proceed. The DHS Forensic Evaluation Department, on behalf of DHS and the head of the institution to which Defendant is committed, will be conducting the subd. 7 competency evaluation in this matter. Dr. Stephanie Bruss is assigned to conduct this evaluation. In order to provide a comprehensive evaluation, Dr. Bruss will need to review records relating to clinical treatment Defendant has received or is receiving. State and federal data privacy laws do not allow Dr. Bruss access to treatment records absent a court order. Defendant’s treatment records are relevant to Dr. Bruss’s review and evaluation and will assist her in providing a more comprehensive opinion regarding Defendant’s current mental condition and competency status. For these reasons, I respectfully request that the attached proposed order for the release of medical records be signed and returned to me to allow the disclosure of treatment records to my office. Additionally, we request this language be included in all orders finding incompetence moving forward, as this would save time and resources for future subd. 7 competency evaluations completed by Forensic Services. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, Amanda Burg, Court Liaison, Forensic Mental Health Program Direct Care & Treatment - Forensic Services 1703 County Road 15 St. Peter, MN 56082 Phone: 507-933-5020 ===== PAGE 002/002 ===== 27-CR-20-423 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 1/25/2021 12:40 PM Copies: Hennepin County Court Administration Andrew Johnson, Assistant Hennepin County Attorney Lisa Skrzeczkoski, Counsel for Ifrah Hassan ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-20-8926_Correspondence for Judicial Approval_2022-11-07_20240430085435.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-20-8926 defendant: TERRELL JOHNSON filing_type: Correspondence for Judicial Approval filing_date: 2022-11-07 pages: 002 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/002 ===== 27-CR-20-8926 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 11/7/2022 1:42 PM DIRECT CARE & TREATMENT – FORENSIC SERVICES November 7, 2022 The Honorable Lisa K. Janzen Judge of the Fourth Judicial District Court – Hennepin County Hennepin County District Court Hennepin County Government Center 300 S. 6th St. Minneapolis, MN 55487 RE: State v. Johnson, Terrell Dannie, Rule 20.01, subd. 7 competency evaluation Court Files: 27-CR-19-12466, 27-CR-19-19606, 27-CR-20-8926, 27-CR-20-20037, 27-CR-21- 19552, 27-CR-21-23233, 27-CR-22-1165, 27-CR-22-390, 27-CR-21-21578; 27-CR-22-1187; 27-CR- 22-5745; 27-CR-22-4898 Dear Judge Janzen, I am the Court Liaison for DHS Direct Care and Treatment- Forensic Services, and I write regarding continuing competency evaluations for the Defendant in the above-referenced case(s). The Defendant was found incompetent to participate in their defense under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 20.01 and they are civilly committed. Please be advised that the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department is able to conduct future competency evaluation(s) under Rule 20.01, subd. 7 in this matter. Costs for future continuing competency evaluations completed by the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department under Rule 20.01 would be charged to the Court pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 480.182 (4). If the Court would like the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department to conduct continuing competency evaluations in this matter, please appoint the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department to do so in the accompanying proposed order within 10 days from the date of this letter.1 The prompt issuance of an order appointing the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department will allow the agency to allocate resources appropriately for future evaluations. Please note that the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department will not conduct continuing competency evaluations in this matter absent an order appointing it to do so, even if the Defendant remains under civil commitment. Please also note that if the Court appoints the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department to conduct continuing competency evaluations in this matter, the assigned Forensic Examiner will need to review records relating to treatment and services the Defendant has received and/or is receiving. The Defendant’s treatment and service records are relevant to the Forensic Examiner’s review and evaluation and will assist them in providing a more comprehensive opinion regarding the Defendant’s current mental condition and 1 Although DHS is not a party to the Defendant’s criminal proceedings and has not consented to be a party, DHS is offering to provide examination services to the Court in the Defendant’s criminal proceedings. 1 ===== PAGE 002/002 ===== 27-CR-20-8926 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 11/7/2022 1:42 PM competency status. State and federal data privacy laws do not allow DHS Forensic Examiners access to treatment and service records absent a court order or a signed release from the Defendant. Accompanying this letter is an order wherein the Court can appoint the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department to conduct the next continuing competency evaluation (meaning, a single competency evaluation under Rule 20.01, subd. 7), or ongoing continuing competency evaluations (meaning, until the Defendant is found competent, the Defendant is no longer under civil commitment, or upon further action by DHS or the Court). The accompanying order also contains language that will authorize the release of the Defendant’s relevant records to Forensic Services for the assigned Forensic Examiner’s review. Thank you for your attention to this correspondence. Please feel free to reach out to me with any questions you may have. Sincerely, Amanda Burg, Court Liaison Direct Care & Treatment - Forensic Services 100 Freeman Drive St. Peter, MN 56082 Phone: 507-985-2659 amanda.r.burg@state.mn.us Copies: Hennepin County Court Administration Prosecuting Attorney Criminal Defense Attorney 2 ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-21-13795_Correspondence for Judicial Approval_2022-09-14_20240430082434.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-21-13795 defendant: JACOB MAMAR JOHNSON filing_type: Correspondence for Judicial Approval filing_date: 2022-09-14 pages: 002 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/002 ===== 27-CR-21-13795 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 9/14/2022 2:33 PM DIRECT CARE & TREATMENT – FORENSIC SERVICES September 14, 2022 The Honorable Lisa K. Janzen Judge of the Fourth Judicial District Court – Hennepin County Hennepin County District Court Hennepin County Government Center 300 S. 6th St. Minneapolis, MN 55487 RE: State v. Jacob Mamar Johnson, Rule 20.01, subd. 7 competency evaluation Court Files: 27-CR-18-2728, 27-CR-19-28883, 27-CR-21-4207, 27-CR-21-13795, 27-CR-21-4954 Dear Judge Janzen, I am the Court Liaison for DHS Direct Care and Treatment- Forensic Services, and I write regarding continuing competency evaluations for the Defendant in the above-referenced case(s). The Defendant was found incompetent to participate in their defense under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 20.01 on 2/1/2022, and they were subsequently civilly committed. Please be advised that the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department is able to conduct future competency evaluation(s) under Rule 20.01, subd. 7 in this matter. Costs for future continuing competency evaluations completed by the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department under Rule 20.01 would be charged to the Court pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 480.182 (4). If the Court would like the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department to conduct continuing competency evaluations in this matter, please appoint the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department to do so in the accompanying proposed order within 10 days from the date of this letter.1 The prompt issuance of an order appointing the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department will allow the agency to allocate resources appropriately for future evaluations. Please note that the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department will not conduct continuing competency evaluations in this matter absent an order appointing it to do so, even if the Defendant remains under civil commitment. Please also note that if the Court appoints the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department to conduct continuing competency evaluations in this matter, the assigned Forensic Examiner will need to review records relating to treatment and services the Defendant has received and/or is receiving. The Defendant’s treatment and service records are relevant to the Forensic Examiner’s review and evaluation and will assist them in providing a more comprehensive opinion regarding the Defendant’s current mental condition and competency status. State and federal data privacy laws do not allow DHS Forensic Examiners access to treatment and service records absent a court order or a signed release from the Defendant. 1 Although DHS is not a party to the Defendant’s criminal proceedings and has not consented to be a party, DHS is offering to provide examination services to the Court in the Defendant’s criminal proceedings. 1 ===== PAGE 002/002 ===== 27-CR-21-13795 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 9/14/2022 2:33 PM Accompanying this letter is an order wherein the Court can appoint the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department to conduct the next continuing competency evaluation (meaning, a single competency evaluation under Rule 20.01, subd. 7), or ongoing continuing competency evaluations (meaning, until the Defendant is found competent, the Defendant is no longer under civil commitment, or upon further action by DHS or the Court). The accompanying order also contains language that will authorize the release of the Defendant’s relevant records to Forensic Services for the assigned Forensic Examiner’s review. Thank you for your attention to this correspondence. Please feel free to reach out to me with any questions you may have. Sincerely, Amanda Burg, Court Liaison Direct Care & Treatment - Forensic Services 100 Freeman Drive St. Peter, MN 56082 Phone: 507-985-2659 amanda.r.burg@state.mn.us Copies: Hennepin County Court Administration Prosecuting Attorney Criminal Defense Attorney 2 ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-21-19552_Correspondence for Judicial Approval_2022-11-07_20240430082841.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-21-19552 defendant: TERRELL JOHNSON filing_type: Correspondence for Judicial Approval filing_date: 2022-11-07 pages: 002 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/002 ===== 27-CR-21-19552 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 11/7/2022 1:49 PM DIRECT CARE & TREATMENT – FORENSIC SERVICES November 7, 2022 The Honorable Lisa K. Janzen Judge of the Fourth Judicial District Court – Hennepin County Hennepin County District Court Hennepin County Government Center 300 S. 6th St. Minneapolis, MN 55487 RE: State v. Johnson, Terrell Dannie, Rule 20.01, subd. 7 competency evaluation Court Files: 27-CR-19-12466, 27-CR-19-19606, 27-CR-20-8926, 27-CR-20-20037, 27-CR-21- 19552, 27-CR-21-23233, 27-CR-22-1165, 27-CR-22-390, 27-CR-21-21578; 27-CR-22-1187; 27-CR- 22-5745; 27-CR-22-4898 Dear Judge Janzen, I am the Court Liaison for DHS Direct Care and Treatment- Forensic Services, and I write regarding continuing competency evaluations for the Defendant in the above-referenced case(s). The Defendant was found incompetent to participate in their defense under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 20.01 and they are civilly committed. Please be advised that the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department is able to conduct future competency evaluation(s) under Rule 20.01, subd. 7 in this matter. Costs for future continuing competency evaluations completed by the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department under Rule 20.01 would be charged to the Court pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 480.182 (4). If the Court would like the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department to conduct continuing competency evaluations in this matter, please appoint the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department to do so in the accompanying proposed order within 10 days from the date of this letter.1 The prompt issuance of an order appointing the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department will allow the agency to allocate resources appropriately for future evaluations. Please note that the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department will not conduct continuing competency evaluations in this matter absent an order appointing it to do so, even if the Defendant remains under civil commitment. Please also note that if the Court appoints the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department to conduct continuing competency evaluations in this matter, the assigned Forensic Examiner will need to review records relating to treatment and services the Defendant has received and/or is receiving. The Defendant’s treatment and service records are relevant to the Forensic Examiner’s review and evaluation and will assist them in providing a more comprehensive opinion regarding the Defendant’s current mental condition and 1 Although DHS is not a party to the Defendant’s criminal proceedings and has not consented to be a party, DHS is offering to provide examination services to the Court in the Defendant’s criminal proceedings. 1 ===== PAGE 002/002 ===== 27-CR-21-19552 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 11/7/2022 1:49 PM competency status. State and federal data privacy laws do not allow DHS Forensic Examiners access to treatment and service records absent a court order or a signed release from the Defendant. Accompanying this letter is an order wherein the Court can appoint the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department to conduct the next continuing competency evaluation (meaning, a single competency evaluation under Rule 20.01, subd. 7), or ongoing continuing competency evaluations (meaning, until the Defendant is found competent, the Defendant is no longer under civil commitment, or upon further action by DHS or the Court). The accompanying order also contains language that will authorize the release of the Defendant’s relevant records to Forensic Services for the assigned Forensic Examiner’s review. Thank you for your attention to this correspondence. Please feel free to reach out to me with any questions you may have. Sincerely, Amanda Burg, Court Liaison Direct Care & Treatment - Forensic Services 100 Freeman Drive St. Peter, MN 56082 Phone: 507-985-2659 amanda.r.burg@state.mn.us Copies: Hennepin County Court Administration Prosecuting Attorney Criminal Defense Attorney 2 ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-21-20637_Correspondence for Judicial Approval_2022-01-27_20240430083258.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-21-20637 defendant: Daniel Lamar Ford filing_type: Correspondence for Judicial Approval filing_date: 2022-01-27 pages: 002 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/002 ===== 27-CR-21-20637 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 1/27/2022 3:48 PM DIRECT CARE & TREATMENT – FORENSIC SERVICES January 27, 2022 The Honorable Lisa K. Janzen Judge of the Fourth Judicial District Court – Hennepin County Hennepin County District Court Hennepin County Government Center 300 S. 6th St. Minneapolis, MN 55487 RE: State v. Daniel Lamar Ford, Rule 20.01, subd. 7 competency evaluation Court Files: 27-CR-21-20637; 27-CR-20-18844; 27-CR-20-14068; 27-CR-20-256 Dear Judge Janzen, I am the Court Liaison for DHS Direct Care and Treatment- Forensic Services, and I write regarding the pending competency evaluation for the Defendant in the above-referenced cases. Defendant was found incompetent to participate in his defense under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 20.01 on October 19, 2021, and they were subsequently civilly committed. Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 20.01, subd. 7, provides in part that the head of the institution to which a defendant is committed must report to the court periodically, not less than six months, on the defendant’s mental condition with an opinion as to competency to proceed. The DHS Forensic Evaluation Department, on behalf of DHS and the head of the institution to which Defendant is committed, will be conducting the subd. 7 competency evaluation in this matter. In order to provide a comprehensive evaluation, the assigned examiner will need to review records relating to clinical treatment Defendant has received or is receiving. State and federal data privacy laws do not allow access to treatment records absent a court order. Defendant’s treatment records are relevant to the examiner’s review and evaluation and will assist them in providing a more comprehensive opinion regarding Defendant’s current mental condition and competency status. For these reasons, I respectfully request that the attached proposed order for the release of medical records be signed and returned to me to allow the disclosure of treatment records to my office. Additionally, we request this language be included in all orders finding incompetence moving forward, as this would save time and resources for future subd. 7 competency evaluations completed by Forensic Services. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, Amanda Burg, Court Liaison Direct Care & Treatment - Forensic Services 1703 County Road 15 St. Peter, MN 56082 Phone: 507-985-2659 amanda.r.burg@state.mn.us ===== PAGE 002/002 ===== 27-CR-21-20637 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 1/27/2022 3:48 PM Copies: Hennepin County Court Administration Prosecuting Attorney Criminal Defense Attorney ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-21-23233_Correspondence for Judicial Approval_2022-11-07_20240430084220.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-21-23233 defendant: TERRELL JOHNSON filing_type: Correspondence for Judicial Approval filing_date: 2022-11-07 pages: 002 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/002 ===== 27-CR-21-23233 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 11/7/2022 2:01 PM DIRECT CARE & TREATMENT – FORENSIC SERVICES November 7, 2022 The Honorable Lisa K. Janzen Judge of the Fourth Judicial District Court – Hennepin County Hennepin County District Court Hennepin County Government Center 300 S. 6th St. Minneapolis, MN 55487 RE: State v. Johnson, Terrell Dannie, Rule 20.01, subd. 7 competency evaluation Court Files: 27-CR-19-12466, 27-CR-19-19606, 27-CR-20-8926, 27-CR-20-20037, 27-CR-21- 19552, 27-CR-21-23233, 27-CR-22-1165, 27-CR-22-390, 27-CR-21-21578; 27-CR-22-1187; 27-CR- 22-5745; 27-CR-22-4898 Dear Judge Janzen, I am the Court Liaison for DHS Direct Care and Treatment- Forensic Services, and I write regarding continuing competency evaluations for the Defendant in the above-referenced case(s). The Defendant was found incompetent to participate in their defense under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 20.01 and they are civilly committed. Please be advised that the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department is able to conduct future competency evaluation(s) under Rule 20.01, subd. 7 in this matter. Costs for future continuing competency evaluations completed by the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department under Rule 20.01 would be charged to the Court pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 480.182 (4). If the Court would like the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department to conduct continuing competency evaluations in this matter, please appoint the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department to do so in the accompanying proposed order within 10 days from the date of this letter.1 The prompt issuance of an order appointing the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department will allow the agency to allocate resources appropriately for future evaluations. Please note that the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department will not conduct continuing competency evaluations in this matter absent an order appointing it to do so, even if the Defendant remains under civil commitment. Please also note that if the Court appoints the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department to conduct continuing competency evaluations in this matter, the assigned Forensic Examiner will need to review records relating to treatment and services the Defendant has received and/or is receiving. The Defendant’s treatment and service records are relevant to the Forensic Examiner’s review and evaluation and will assist them in providing a more comprehensive opinion regarding the Defendant’s current mental condition and 1 Although DHS is not a party to the Defendant’s criminal proceedings and has not consented to be a party, DHS is offering to provide examination services to the Court in the Defendant’s criminal proceedings. 1 ===== PAGE 002/002 ===== 27-CR-21-23233 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 11/7/2022 2:01 PM competency status. State and federal data privacy laws do not allow DHS Forensic Examiners access to treatment and service records absent a court order or a signed release from the Defendant. Accompanying this letter is an order wherein the Court can appoint the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department to conduct the next continuing competency evaluation (meaning, a single competency evaluation under Rule 20.01, subd. 7), or ongoing continuing competency evaluations (meaning, until the Defendant is found competent, the Defendant is no longer under civil commitment, or upon further action by DHS or the Court). The accompanying order also contains language that will authorize the release of the Defendant’s relevant records to Forensic Services for the assigned Forensic Examiner’s review. Thank you for your attention to this correspondence. Please feel free to reach out to me with any questions you may have. Sincerely, Amanda Burg, Court Liaison Direct Care & Treatment - Forensic Services 100 Freeman Drive St. Peter, MN 56082 Phone: 507-985-2659 amanda.r.burg@state.mn.us Copies: Hennepin County Court Administration Prosecuting Attorney Criminal Defense Attorney 2 ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-21-6229_Correspondence for Judicial Approval_2021-08-30_20240430080232.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-21-6229 defendant: MARVAL BARNES filing_type: Correspondence for Judicial Approval filing_date: 2021-08-30 pages: 002 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/002 ===== 27-CR-21-6229 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 8/30/2021 11:13 AM DIRECT CARE & TREATMENT – FORENSIC SERVICES August 30, 2021 The Honorable Lisa K. Janzen Judge of the Fourth Judicial District Court – Hennepin County Hennepin County Government Center 300 South 6th Street Minneapolis, MN 55487 RE: State v. Marvel Barnes, Rule 20.01, subd. 7 competency evaluation Court Files: 27-CR-21-722; 27-CR-21-6229; 27-CR-21-8856 Dear Judge Janzen, I am the Court Liaison for DHS Direct Care and Treatment- Forensic Services, and I write regarding the pending competency evaluation for the Defendant in the above-referenced cases. Defendant was found incompetent to participate in his defense under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 20.01 on April 13, 2021, and they were subsequently civilly committed. Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 20.01, subd. 7, provides in part that the head of the institution to which a defendant is committed must report to the court periodically, not less than six months, on the defendant’s mental condition with an opinion as to competency to proceed. The DHS Forensic Evaluation Department, on behalf of DHS and the head of the institution to which Defendant is committed, will be conducting the subd. 7 competency evaluation in this matter. Dr. Jennifer Harrison is assigned to conduct this evaluation. In order to provide a comprehensive evaluation, Dr. Harrison will need to review records relating to clinical treatment Defendant has received or is receiving. State and federal data privacy laws do not allow Dr. Harrison access to treatment records absent a court order. Defendant’s treatment records are relevant to Dr. Harrison’s review and evaluation and will assist her in providing a more comprehensive opinion regarding Defendant’s current mental condition and competency status. For these reasons, I respectfully request that the attached proposed order for the release of medical records be signed and returned to me to allow the disclosure of treatment records to my office. Additionally, we request this language be included in all orders finding incompetence moving forward, as this would save time and resources for future subd. 7 competency evaluations completed by Forensic Services. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, Amanda Burg, Court Liaison Direct Care & Treatment - Forensic Services 1703 County Road 15 St. Peter, MN 56082 Phone: 507-985-2659 ===== PAGE 002/002 ===== 27-CR-21-6229 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 8/30/2021 11:13 AM Copies: Hennepin County Court Administration Prosecuting Attorney Criminal Defense Attorney ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-21-6229_Correspondence for Judicial Approval_2022-10-27_20240430080223.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-21-6229 defendant: MARVAL BARNES filing_type: Correspondence for Judicial Approval filing_date: 2022-10-27 pages: 002 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/002 ===== 27-CR-21-6229 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 10/27/2022 3:16 PM DIRECT CARE & TREATMENT – FORENSIC SERVICES October 27, 2022 The Honorable Lisa K. Janzen Judge of the Fourth Judicial District Court – Hennepin County Hennepin County District Court Hennepin County Government Center 300 S. 6th St. Minneapolis, MN 55487 RE: State v. Marvel Barnes, Rule 20.01, subd. 7 competency evaluation Court Files: 27-CR-21-11758; 27-CR-21-11460; 27-CR-21-8613; 27-CR-21-8643; 27-CR-21-6229; 27-CR-21-8856 Dear Judge Janzen, I am the Court Liaison for DHS Direct Care and Treatment- Forensic Services, and I write regarding continuing competency evaluations for the Defendant in the above-referenced case(s). The Defendant was found incompetent to participate in their defense under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 20.01 on 4/13/2021, and they were subsequently civilly committed. Please be advised that the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department is able to conduct future competency evaluation(s) under Rule 20.01, subd. 7 in this matter. Costs for future continuing competency evaluations completed by the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department under Rule 20.01 would be charged to the Court pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 480.182 (4). If the Court would like the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department to conduct continuing competency evaluations in this matter, please appoint the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department to do so in the accompanying proposed order within 10 days from the date of this letter.1 The prompt issuance of an order appointing the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department will allow the agency to allocate resources appropriately for future evaluations. Please note that the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department will not conduct continuing competency evaluations in this matter absent an order appointing it to do so, even if the Defendant remains under civil commitment. Please also note that if the Court appoints the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department to conduct continuing competency evaluations in this matter, the assigned Forensic Examiner will need to review records relating to treatment and services the Defendant has received and/or is receiving. The Defendant’s treatment and service records are relevant to the Forensic Examiner’s review and evaluation and will assist them in providing a more comprehensive opinion regarding the Defendant’s current mental condition and competency status. State and federal data privacy laws do not allow DHS Forensic Examiners access to treatment and service records absent a court order or a signed release from the Defendant. 1 Although DHS is not a party to the Defendant’s criminal proceedings and has not consented to be a party, DHS is offering to provide examination services to the Court in the Defendant’s criminal proceedings. 1 ===== PAGE 002/002 ===== 27-CR-21-6229 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 10/27/2022 3:16 PM Accompanying this letter is an order wherein the Court can appoint the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department to conduct the next continuing competency evaluation (meaning, a single competency evaluation under Rule 20.01, subd. 7), or ongoing continuing competency evaluations (meaning, until the Defendant is found competent, the Defendant is no longer under civil commitment, or upon further action by DHS or the Court). The accompanying order also contains language that will authorize the release of the Defendant’s relevant records to Forensic Services for the assigned Forensic Examiner’s review. Thank you for your attention to this correspondence. Please feel free to reach out to me with any questions you may have. Sincerely, Amanda Burg, Court Liaison Direct Care & Treatment - Forensic Services 100 Freeman Drive St. Peter, MN 56082 Phone: 507-985-2659 amanda.r.burg@state.mn.us Copies: Hennepin County Court Administration Prosecuting Attorney Criminal Defense Attorney 2 ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-22-1165_Correspondence for Judicial Approval_2022-11-07_20240429030431.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-22-1165 defendant: TERRELL JOHNSON filing_type: Correspondence for Judicial Approval filing_date: 2022-11-07 pages: 002 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/002 ===== 27-CR-22-1165 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 11/7/2022 2:04 PM DIRECT CARE & TREATMENT – FORENSIC SERVICES November 7, 2022 The Honorable Lisa K. Janzen Judge of the Fourth Judicial District Court – Hennepin County Hennepin County District Court Hennepin County Government Center 300 S. 6th St. Minneapolis, MN 55487 RE: State v. Johnson, Terrell Dannie, Rule 20.01, subd. 7 competency evaluation Court Files: 27-CR-19-12466, 27-CR-19-19606, 27-CR-20-8926, 27-CR-20-20037, 27-CR-21- 19552, 27-CR-21-23233, 27-CR-22-1165, 27-CR-22-390, 27-CR-21-21578; 27-CR-22-1187; 27-CR- 22-5745; 27-CR-22-4898 Dear Judge Janzen, I am the Court Liaison for DHS Direct Care and Treatment- Forensic Services, and I write regarding continuing competency evaluations for the Defendant in the above-referenced case(s). The Defendant was found incompetent to participate in their defense under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 20.01 and they are civilly committed. Please be advised that the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department is able to conduct future competency evaluation(s) under Rule 20.01, subd. 7 in this matter. Costs for future continuing competency evaluations completed by the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department under Rule 20.01 would be charged to the Court pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 480.182 (4). If the Court would like the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department to conduct continuing competency evaluations in this matter, please appoint the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department to do so in the accompanying proposed order within 10 days from the date of this letter.1 The prompt issuance of an order appointing the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department will allow the agency to allocate resources appropriately for future evaluations. Please note that the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department will not conduct continuing competency evaluations in this matter absent an order appointing it to do so, even if the Defendant remains under civil commitment. Please also note that if the Court appoints the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department to conduct continuing competency evaluations in this matter, the assigned Forensic Examiner will need to review records relating to treatment and services the Defendant has received and/or is receiving. The Defendant’s treatment and service records are relevant to the Forensic Examiner’s review and evaluation and will assist them in providing a more comprehensive opinion regarding the Defendant’s current mental condition and 1 Although DHS is not a party to the Defendant’s criminal proceedings and has not consented to be a party, DHS is offering to provide examination services to the Court in the Defendant’s criminal proceedings. 1 ===== PAGE 002/002 ===== 27-CR-22-1165 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 11/7/2022 2:04 PM competency status. State and federal data privacy laws do not allow DHS Forensic Examiners access to treatment and service records absent a court order or a signed release from the Defendant. Accompanying this letter is an order wherein the Court can appoint the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department to conduct the next continuing competency evaluation (meaning, a single competency evaluation under Rule 20.01, subd. 7), or ongoing continuing competency evaluations (meaning, until the Defendant is found competent, the Defendant is no longer under civil commitment, or upon further action by DHS or the Court). The accompanying order also contains language that will authorize the release of the Defendant’s relevant records to Forensic Services for the assigned Forensic Examiner’s review. Thank you for your attention to this correspondence. Please feel free to reach out to me with any questions you may have. Sincerely, Amanda Burg, Court Liaison Direct Care & Treatment - Forensic Services 100 Freeman Drive St. Peter, MN 56082 Phone: 507-985-2659 amanda.r.burg@state.mn.us Copies: Hennepin County Court Administration Prosecuting Attorney Criminal Defense Attorney 2 ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-22-20527_Memorandum_2023-11-01_20240429162753.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-22-20527 defendant: JARELLE THOMAS VAUGHN filing_type: Memorandum filing_date: 2023-11-01 pages: 016 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/016 ===== 27-CR-22-20527 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 11/1/2023 4:01 PM STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT State of Minnesota, STATE’S MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION Plaintiff, FOR PROMPT TRANSER vs. MNCIS No.: 27-CR-22-20527 Jarelle Thomas Vaughn, Defendant. TO: JUDGE OF DISTRICT COURT; ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT; AND DEFENDANT. INTRODUCTION Jarelle Vaughn, herein Defendant, has been charged with two counts of Assault in the Second Degree pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 609.222.1 and Minn. Stat. § 609.222.2. These charges stem from an incident on October 11, 2023, where Defendant boarded Metro Transit and subsequently stabbed two individuals. Pursuant to a Court order dated November 16, 2022, under Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure 20.01, Dr. Catherine Carlson evaluated Defendant and determined he was incompetent on December 14, 2022. That finding was entered, uncontested, on the record on December 20, 2022. On June 22, 2023, an order for Indeterminate Commitment as a Peron who is Mentally Ill and Dangerous was issued. Due to this procedural history, Defendant has remained in custody awaiting transfer to a hospital. The State has never opposed transfer to a hospital, however, there remained a waitlist to enter a mental health facility in Minnesota. On October 9, 2023, defense motioned for a prompt transfer or, alternatively, dismissal on the charges. Defendant has since been transferred, on October 25, 2023, therefore Defendant’s motion is moot. However, the State will briefly address Defendant’s allegations in their motion. 1 ===== PAGE 002/016 ===== 27-CR-22-20527 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 11/1/2023 4:01 PM ARGUMENT I. DEFENDANT HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED AND THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION IS MOOT. Defendant has been transferred to Forensic Menth Health St. Peter, Minnesota, to the Tamarack Unit on October 25, 2023, by the Hennepin County Sheriff from the Hennepin County Jail. This transfer was pursuant to Defendant’s case 27-MH-PR-23-26. Prior to his placement, Defendant has remained in custody pursuant to Court Order on June 22, 2023. See District Court Findings and Order, filed June 22, 2023, Court File Number 27-MH-PR-23-26 (Attachment 1). In that Order, Judge Julia Dayton Klein found: Dr. Lewis further provides that Respondent has expressed paranoid ideation that could result in additional violence in the future, indicating that it is significant that Respondent endorsed chronic homicidal ideation during interviews with Drs. Carlson and Peuschold. He informed Dr. Carlson he thinks of hurting others “all the time,” and he told Dr. Peuschold he is “always thinking about hurting someone.” Dr. Lewis agrees with the Court’s initial finding of mentally ill and dangerous to the public and concludes that Respondent presents a substantial likelihood of engaging in future violence. Id. at 9. He has a lengthy and well documented history of engaging in violent and/or threatening behaviors, remains acutely psychotic (e.g., hyper-religious and paranoid delusional ideation, disorganization of thought), and lacks insight into his illness and need for psychotropic medication. … Respondent cannot be adequately supervised in an outpatient or other less restrictive setting. Such a placement would not provide adequate protection to the public at this time in Dr. Lewis’s opinion. Id. The Court agrees with Dr. Lewis. Id. The State never opposed Defendant’s transfer to FMH, however, there was a significant waitlist that was out of the State’s control. Defendant’s motion is now moot as Defendant has now been transferred. 2 ===== PAGE 003/016 ===== 27-CR-22-20527 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 11/1/2023 4:01 PM A. Defendant’s time at Hennepin County Jail since October 11, 2022. Regarding Defendant’s time at the Hennepin County Jail, defense did not provide documentation on why Defendant was in segregation, when he was there or for how long. However, the State did receive police reports of an alleged assault, Mr. Vaughn being the suspect, that occurred on October 13, 2023. The State has notified defense that this case has been charged. See Complaint (Attachment 2). Further, the Order from June 22, 2023, provides some insight on Defendant’s time at the jail. In her order finding Defendant Mentally Ill and Dangerous, Judge Dayton Klein found: Respondent has been incarcerated most of his adult life, and when not incarcerated he reported multiple hospital visits and admissions. Id. He served 10 years in prison in the State of Iowa for a robbery conviction where he spent over seven years in segregation due to active symptoms of mental illness (i.e. mood instability, paranoia, hallucinations, and violent behavior). Id. at 8. Consequently, this Court found that (a) Respondent is mentally ill and mental illness is manifested by instances of grossly disturbed behavior or faulty perceptions; (b) as a result of Respondent’s impairment, he presents a clear danger to the safety of others and there is a substantial likelihood that he will engage in acts capable of inflicting serious physical harm on another; and (c) the less restrictive placement for Respondent is commitment as a person who has a mental illness and is dangerous to the public. Id. at 16. See District Court Findings and Order, filed June 22, 2023, Court File Number 27-MH-PR-23-26 (Attachment 1). Respondent has remained aggressive and assaultive while in jail. Id. at 12; Ex. 5; and Ex. 6. Id. Minnestoa Statute §253B.18, subd. 3, states, “If the court finds at the final determination hearing held pursuant to subdivision 2 that the patient continues to be a person who has a mental illness and is dangerous to the public, then the court shall order commitment of the proposed patient for an indeterminate period of time.” In the present case, Defendant was determined Mentally Ill and Dangerous and is being held indeterminately. Although bail was set for Defendant’s pending Assault Two case, due to the severity of the charges and public safety, Defendant was congruently being held on this basis. 3 ===== PAGE 004/016 ===== 27-CR-22-20527 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 11/1/2023 4:01 PM CONCLUSION Because Defendant was transferred to Forensic Menth Health St. Peter, Minnesota, to the Tamarack Unit on October 25, 2023, Defendant’s motion for prompt transfer is moot. Respectfully submitted, MARY MORIARTY Hennepin County Attorney Dated: November 1, 2023 By: Jenna Dominik (#0400050) Assistant Hennepin County Attorney C2300 Government Center Minneapolis, MN 55487 4 ===== PAGE 005/016 ===== 27-CR-22-20527 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota Attachment 1 11/1/2023 4:01 PM STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN PROBATE / MENTAL HEALTH DIVISION File No. 27-MH-PR-23-26 In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF Jarelle Thomas Vaughn, LAW, AND ORDER FOR DOB: 03/10/1981 INDETERMINATE COMMITMENT AS A Respondent. PERSON WHO IS MENTALLY ILL AND DANGEROUS TO THE PUBLIC The above-entitled matter came on for hearing before the undersigned Referee of District Court on May 10, 2023, pursuant to Minn. Stat. §253B.18, Subd. 2. Petitioner was represented by Annsara Elasky, Assistant Hennepin County Attorney. Respondent was present and was represented by Joel Fisher, Esq. Also present were examiner, Dr. Jason L. Lewis, Ph.D, LP; Respondent’s aunt, Kim Cunningham; and Nadia Garavito with case management services. The Court admitted the following evidence with no objection from Respondent: Exhibit 1 – Mentally Ill and Dangerous-60 Day Evaluation Report Exhibit 2 – Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Jason L. Lewis, Ph.D., LP Exhibit 3 –Hennepin County Medical Center (“HCMC”) records Exhibit 4 – Hennepin County Jail records Exhibit 5 – Jail incident report, April 11, 2023 Exhibit 6 – Jail incident report, April 25, 2023 The Court also took judicial notice of its Order for Commitment as Mentally Ill and Dangerous, dated February 27, 2023; and Dr. Dawn Peuschold’s examiner report dated February 21, 2023. At the conclusion of the trial Respondent’s counsel requested permission to submit written closing arguments. The Court received closing argument from Respondent on May 19, 2023, and from Petitioner on May 26, 2023, at which time the matter was taken under advisement. The Court, having heard the evidence adduced at the hearing and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, and upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein, now makes the following: ===== PAGE 006/016 ===== 27-CR-22-20527 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 11/1/2023 4:01 PM FINDINGS OF FACT 1. By Order filed herein on February 27, 2023, Respondent was committed to the head of Minnesota Security Hospital1 as a person mentally ill and dangerous to the public. He currently remains at the Hennepin County Adult Detention Center, pending placement. 2. The Treatment Report from the Forensic Mental Health Program (“FMHP”) pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 253B.18, subd. 2, was received by the Court on April 25, 2023. See Ex. 1. 3. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in this Court’s Order of February 27, 2023, are hereby incorporated herein and made a part of this Order by reference. In particular, Respondent is diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and schizoaffective disorder versus bipolar I disorder with psychotic features versus schizophrenia. Commit Ord., p. 6. Respondent has a history of mental illness dating back to age 14-15. Id. at 7. Furthermore, Respondent has been incarcerated most of his adult life, and when not incarcerated he reported multiple hospital visits and admissions. Id. He served 10 years in prison in the State of Iowa for a robbery conviction where he spent over seven years in segregation due to active symptoms of mental illness (i.e. mood instability, paranoia, hallucinations, and violent behavior). Id. at 8. Consequently, this Court found that (a) Respondent is mentally ill and mental illness is manifested by instances of grossly disturbed behavior or faulty perceptions; (b) as a result of Respondent’s impairment, he presents a clear danger to the safety of others and there is a substantial likelihood that he will engage in acts capable of inflicting serious physical harm on another; and (c) the less restrictive placement for Respondent is commitment as a person who has a mental illness and is dangerous to the public. Id. at 16. 4. Respondent is not currently receiving any mental health treatment or neuroleptic medication to treat his symptoms for mental illness while he is incarcerated. See Ex. 3, p. 15. However, he was scheduled to meet with a provider on May 12, 2023, to discuss neuroleptic medications. Respondent argues that Respondent is entitled to admission to a state operated treatment facility within 48-hours of the first commitment order (circa March 2, 2023). Minn. Stat §253B.18 read together with Minn. Stat §253B.10 subd.1 (“the 48-hour rule”) allows for a process for Respondent to receive treatment immediately after a commitment order issues and to evaluate the need for indeterminate commitment after one receives treatment. During the following 60 days 1 Minnesota Security Hospital is now referred to as the Forensic Mental Health Program (“FMHP”). ===== PAGE 007/016 ===== 27-CR-22-20527 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 11/1/2023 4:01 PM an examiner (in this case Dr. Lewis) prepares a "60-day treatment report", which would detail the many mental problems the Respondent might have, describe what efforts are underway to treat them, and to provide a risk assessment opining if Respondent remains mentally ill and dangerous to the public after having received treatment for his mental health symptoms. Because the examiner did not review any treatment records from the date of commitment to the present, he relied on records prior to the date of commitment and interview with the Respondent. Respondent argues that in this case Dr Lewis testimony was wholly consistent with Dr. Peuschold's, the Court Examiner in the original commitment. Furthermore, Dr. Lewis’ testimony discussed a risk assessment he conducted that could be different if Respondent were receiving treatment. Dr. Lewis further testified that there was nothing to prevent the Petitioner from bringing a request for a Jarvis order (forcing neuroleptic medication) while the Respondent was in jail. To date, no such order has been requested in the present case. Therefore, since Respondent is not receiving treatment, no attempts have been made by the jail to provide treatment, and the 48-hour rule has been violated, the Court should deny the request to indeterminately commit Respondent as a person who is mentally ill and dangerous to the public. This Court does not agree. 5. Dr. Lewis provided a persuasive report and credible testimony indicating Respondent continues to be a person who is mentally ill and dangerous to the public. Ex. 1, p. 9. Dr. Lewis interviewed the Respondent and reviewed records indicated in his report to include prior examiner reports, medical records, and court orders. He provided a risk assessment2 and diagnosed Respondent with the following: schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type (provisional); stimulant (cocaine and methamphetamine) use disorder, in a controlled environment; cannabis use disorder, in a controlled environment; alcohol use disorder, in a controlled environment; adult antisocial behavior (provisional); and rule out antisocial personality disorder. Ex. 1, p. 7. Dr. Lewis opines that Respondent’s short-term prognosis poor and he remains acutely psychotic. He is not receiving psychotropic medication and is not currently placed in a treatment setting. He lacks insight into his illness and need for treatment. He has a history of noncompliance with psychotropic medication while in the community. He has a long history of violence towards others as well as self-injurious behavior. Id. However, he does have a history of responding favorably to the administration of antipsychotic medication. The available records indicate treatment providers 2 Dr. Lewis utilized the Historical-Clinical-Risk Management 20, Version 3 (HCR-20V3) to assess Respondent’s risk for future violence. ===== PAGE 008/016 ===== 27-CR-22-20527 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 11/1/2023 4:01 PM have observed an appreciable decrease in his symptomatology during periods of compliance with antipsychotic medication. Thus, it is possible Respondent will demonstrate significant psychiatric improvement, develop insight, and maintain treatment adherence following the initiation of comprehensive mental health treatment (i.e. antipsychotic medication, psychoeducational treatment groups) provided in a highly structured and controlled setting. Id. Dr. Lewis further provides that Respondent has expressed paranoid ideation that could result in additional violence in the future, indicating that it is significant that Respondent endorsed chronic homicidal ideation during interviews with Drs. Carlson and Peuschold. He informed Dr. Carlson he thinks of hurting others “all the time,” and he told Dr. Peuschold he is “always thinking about hurting someone.” Dr. Lewis agrees with the Court’s initial finding of mentally ill and dangerous to the public and concludes that Respondent presents a substantial likelihood of engaging in future violence. Id. at 9. He has a lengthy and well documented history of engaging in violent and/or threatening behaviors, remains acutely psychotic (e.g., hyper-religious and paranoid delusional ideation, disorganization of thought), and lacks insight into his illness and need for psychotropic medication. Furthermore, Dr. Lewis opines that Respondent presents with several historical risk factors associated with increased baseline risk for violence; and presents with several uncontrolled clinical risk factors that can further exacerbate his already elevated baseline risk for future violence-his uncontrolled clinical risk factors include problems with insight, violent ideation, symptoms of major mental disorder, instability, and response to treatment/supervision. Dr. Lewis did testify that his risk assessment may be impacted if Respondent were receiving treatment with neuroleptic medications. However, despite this, Dr. Lewis concludes that the most appropriate treatment setting at this time based on Respondent’s level of risk, ongoing treatment needs, and history of noncompliance with treatment interventions while in the community is FMHP. Respondent cannot be adequately supervised in an outpatient or other less restrictive setting. Such a placement would not provide adequate protection to the public at this time in Dr. Lewis’s opinion. Id. The Court agrees with Dr. Lewis. Records indicate that Respondent had an appointment with a doctor regarding neuroleptic medications on May 12, 2023. Ex. 3, p. 15. However, no information was submitted to the court regarding any follow-up to this appointment. The records are unclear what, if any affect neuroleptics have currently made regarding Respondent’s risk assessment for future violence and dangerousness to the public. Further, records did not indicate Respondent requesting treatment and ===== PAGE 009/016 ===== 27-CR-22-20527 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 11/1/2023 4:01 PM being refused such treatment by the jail. In fact, records suggest nursing staff discussing options for medication on May 1, 2023, to where the Respondent replied that they have provided him benefit in the past and he stopped taking them due to weight gain. Id. at 14. The Court must determine if Respondent is presently mentally and dangerous to the public. Respondent has remained aggressive and assaultive while in jail. Id. at 12; Ex. 5; and Ex. 6. While seeing how Respondent reacted in treatment may have changed the Examiner’s risk assessment, the fact is that the Respondent has not yet had treatment and the Examiner believes Respondent continues to meet criteria for mentally ill and dangerous to the public. Respondent fails to cite authority for the proposition that the remedy for failure to treat him is denial of the final determination of mentally ill and dangerous. Furthermore, the legislature likely intended a second layer of judicial review prior to indefinite commitment as a procedural safeguard to catch any mistakes made in the initial commitment, as well as to consider any changed circumstances. Seeing how there is no change in Respondent’s circumstances and no mistakes have been asserted, the Court denies Respondent’s request to deny the indeterminate determination on the basis that Respondent has not yet received treatment. Respondent presents no reasoning or authority in support of the position that continued mentally ill and dangerous to the public status is not proved by clear and convincing evidence when the committed person has not begun receiving treatment. 6. Commitment for an indeterminate period of time to the Forensic Mental Health Program as a person mentally ill and dangerous to the public is currently the least restrictive, available, and appropriate disposition of this matter. Respondent continues to lack insight into his diagnosis and treatment needs. Existing safeguards are presently insufficient to manage his level of risk. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that the statutory requirements as defined in Minn. Stat. § 253B.02, subd. 17. have been met, and that Respondent continues to be a person mentally ill and dangerous to the public, 2. Respondent should be committed for an indeterminate period of time, pursuant to Minn. Stat. §253B.18, subd. 3. ===== PAGE 010/016 ===== 27-CR-22-20527 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 11/1/2023 4:01 PM ORDER 1. That Respondent is committed as a person mentally ill and dangerous to the public to the Forensic Mental Health Program for an indeterminate period of time. 2. That this commitment shall be subject to all provisions of Minn. Stat. § 253B.18. 3. Costs of care will be paid in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 246.50-55. Respondent may be responsible for all or a portion of the cost of treatment and/or board and lodging based on a sliding fee scale and the eligibility requirements set forth in Minn. Stat. § 246.50-55. Order Recommended by: BY THE COURT: _____________________________ __________________________ Referee of District Court Judge of District Court ===== PAGE 011/016 ===== 27-CR-22-20527 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota Attachment 2 11/1/2023 4:01 PM State of Minnesota District Court County of Hennepin 4th Judicial District Prosecutor File No. 23A12299 Court File No. 27-CR-23-23201 State of Minnesota, COMPLAINT Plaintiff, Summons vs. JARELLE THOMAS VAUGHN DOB: 03/10/1981 1010 Currie Ave Minneapolis, MN 55403 Defendant. The Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s): COUNT I Charge: Assault - 4th Degree - Peace Officer - Throws/transfers bodily fluids or feces at or onto officer Minnesota Statute: 609.2231.1(c)(2), with reference to: 609.101.2, 609.2231.1(c) Maximum Sentence: 3 YEARS AND/OR $6,000 Offense Level: Felony Offense Date (on or about): 10/13/2023 Control #(ICR#): 23017726 Charge Description: That on or about 10/13/2023, in Minneapolis, in Hennepin County, Minnesota, Jarelle Thomas Vaughn assaulted Victim, a peace officer, while that officer was effecting a lawful arrest or executing a duty imposed upon him by law, and intentionally threw or transferred bodily fluids or feces at or upon the officer. 1 ===== PAGE 012/016 ===== 27-CR-22-20527 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota STATEMENT OF PROBABLE CAUSE 11/1/2023 4:01 PM Complainant has investigated the facts and circumstances of this offense and believes the following establishes probable cause: On October 13, 2023, Jarelle Thomas Vaughn, born March 10, 1981, herein DEFENDANT, was an inmate at the Hennepin County Jail in Minneapolis, Hennepin County, Minnesota. During breakfast, deputies went into DEFENDANT’s G-Mod to feed DEFENDANT. Deputies opened DEFENDANT’s food pass; however, DEFENDANT had a towel covering it. As deputies were putting the food on the food pass DEFENDANT removed the towel and spat at the deputy. DEFENDANT’s spit hit the deputy, herein VICTIM, in the face. DEFENDANT has repeated incidents of violence in the jail, particularly towards staff. DEFENDANT has been in custody at the Forensic Mental Health St. Peter Tamarack Unit since October 25, 2023. 2 ===== PAGE 013/016 ===== 27-CR-22-20527 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota SIGNATURES AND APPROVALS 11/1/2023 4:01 PM Complainant requests that Defendant, subject to bail or conditions of release, be: (1) arrested or that other lawful steps be taken to obtain Defendant's appearance in court; or (2) detained, if already in custody, pending further proceedings; and that said Defendant otherwise be dealt with according to law. Complainant declares under penalty of perjury that everything stated in this document is true and correct. Minn. Stat. § 358.116; Minn. R. Crim. P. 2.01, subds. 1, 2. Complainant Allan McHugh Electronically Signed: Detective 10/30/2023 12:22 PM 350 S 5th St Hennepin County, Minnesota Minneapolis, MN 55415 Badge: 500 Being authorized to prosecute the offenses charged, I approve this complaint. Prosecuting Attorney Jenna Dominik Electronically Signed: 300 S 6th St 10/30/2023 11:53 AM Minneapolis, MN 55487 (612) 348-5550 3 ===== PAGE 014/016 ===== 27-CR-22-20527 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota FINDING OF PROBABLE CAUSE 11/1/2023 4:01 PM From the above sworn facts, and any supporting affidavits or supplemental sworn testimony, I, the Issuing Officer, have determined that probable cause exists to support, subject to bail or conditions of release where applicable, Defendant’s arrest or other lawful steps be taken to obtain Defendant’s appearance in court, or Defendant’s detention, if already in custody, pending further proceedings. Defendant is therefore charged with the above-stated offense(s). X SUMMONS THEREFORE YOU, THE DEFENDANT, ARE SUMMONED to appear as directed in the Notice of Hearing before the above-named court to answer this complaint. IF YOU FAIL TO APPEAR in response to this SUMMONS, a WARRANT FOR YOUR ARREST shall be issued. WARRANT To the Sheriff of the above-named county; or other person authorized to execute this warrant: I order, in the name of the State of Minnesota, that the Defendant be apprehended and arrested without delay and brought promptly before the court (if in session), and if not, before a Judge or Judicial Officer of such court without unnecessary delay, and in any event not later than 36 hours after the arrest or as soon as such Judge or Judicial Officer is available to be dealt with according to law. Execute in MN Only Execute Nationwide Execute in Border States ORDER OF DETENTION Since the Defendant is already in custody, I order, subject to bail or conditions of release, that the Defendant continue to be detained pending further proceedings. Bail: $0.00 Conditions of Release: This complaint, duly subscribed and sworn to or signed under penalty of perjury, is issued by the undersigned Judicial Officer as of the following date: October 30, 2023. Judicial Officer Amy Dawson Electronically Signed: 10/30/2023 04:26 PM District Court Judge Sworn testimony has been given before the Judicial Officer by the following witnesses: COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA State of Minnesota Plaintiff LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER RETURN OF SERVICE I hereby Certify and Return that I have served a copy of this vs. Summons upon the Defendant herein named. Signature of Authorized Service Agent: Jarelle Thomas Vaughn Defendant 4 ===== PAGE 015/016 ===== 27-CR-22-20527 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota DEFENDANT FACT SHEET 11/1/2023 4:01 PM Name: Jarelle Thomas Vaughn DOB: 03/10/1981 Address: 1010 Currie Ave Minneapolis, MN 55403 Alias Names/DOB: SID: Height: Weight: Eye Color: Hair Color: Gender: MALE Race: Black Fingerprints Required per Statute: Yes Fingerprint match to Criminal History Record: No Driver's License #: SILS Person ID #: 714104 SILS Tracking No. 3362726 Alcohol Concentration: 5 ===== PAGE 016/016 ===== 27-CR-22-20527 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota STATUTE AND OFFENSE GRID 11/1/2023 4:01 PM Cnt Statute Offense Statute Nbrs and Descriptions Offense MOC GOC Controlling Case Nbr Type Date(s) Level Agencies Numbers 1 Charge 10/13/2023 609.2231.1(c)(2) Felony A4G07 MN0270000 23017726 Assault - 4th Degree - Peace Officer - Throws/transfers bodily fluids or feces at or onto officer Penalty 10/13/2023 609.2231.1(c) Felony A4G07 MN0270000 23017726 Assault - 4th Degree - Peace Officer - Penalty for violation of 609.2231.1(c)(1) or (c)(2) Definition 10/13/2023 609.101.2 No-Level A4G07 MN0270000 23017726 Minimum Fines – Victim Assistance Programs 6 ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-22-20527_Memorandum_2023-12-15_20240429162750.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-22-20527 defendant: JARELLE THOMAS VAUGHN filing_type: Memorandum filing_date: 2023-12-15 pages: 020 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/020 ===== 27-CR-22-20527 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 12/15/2023 2:27 PM STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT State of Minnesota, STATE’S MEMORANDUM IN IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION Plaintiff, FOR DISMISSAL vs. MNCIS No.: 27-CR-22-20527 27-CR-23-23201 Jarelle Thomas Vaughn, Defendant. TO: JUDGE OF DISTRICT COURT; ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT; AND DEFENDANT. INTRODUCTION Jarelle Vaughn, herein Defendant, has been charged with two counts of Assault in the Second Degree pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 609.222.1 and Minn. Stat. § 609.222.2. These charges stem from an incident on October 11, 2023, where Defendant boarded Metro Transit and subsequently stabbed two individuals. Pursuant to a Court order dated November 16, 2022, under Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure 20.01, Dr. Catherine Carlson evaluated Defendant and determined he was incompetent on December 14, 2022. That finding was entered, uncontested, on the record on December 20, 2022. On June 22, 2023, an order for Indeterminate Commitment as a Peron who is Mentally Ill and Dangerous was issued. Due to this procedural history, Defendant remained in custody awaiting transfer to a hospital. The State has never opposed transfer to a hospital, however, there remained a waitlist to enter a mental health facility in Minnesota. On October 9, 2023, defense motioned for a prompt transfer or, alternatively, dismissal on the charges. Defendant was transferred, on October 25, 2023, after being held in custody for approximately 1 year. On October 30, 2023, Defendant was charged with Felony Fourth Degree Assault, case file 27-CR- 23-23201, with an offense date of October 13, 2023. Although Defendant had been transferred, defense 1 ===== PAGE 002/020 ===== 27-CR-22-20527 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 12/15/2023 2:27 PM renewed their Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Minn. Stat. 611.46, subd 8(d). This motion included the Second-Degree Assault case and the Fourth Degree Assault case. The Court heard defense’s oral argument regarding this motion on December 1, 2023, below is the State’s response. ARGUMENT Defendant has been transferred to Forensic Menth Health St. Peter, Minnesota, to the Tamarack Unit on October 25, 2023, by the Hennepin County Sheriff from the Hennepin County Jail. This transfer was pursuant to Defendant’s case 27-MH-PR-23-26. Prior to his placement, Defendant had remained in custody pursuant to Court Order on June 22, 2023. See District Court Findings and Order, filed June 22, 2023, Court File Number 27-MH-PR-23-26 (Attachment 1). In that Order, Judge Julia Dayton Klein found: Dr. Lewis further provides that Respondent has expressed paranoid ideation that could result in additional violence in the future, indicating that it is significant that Respondent endorsed chronic homicidal ideation during interviews with Drs. Carlson and Peuschold. He informed Dr. Carlson he thinks of hurting others “all the time,” and he told Dr. Peuschold he is “always thinking about hurting someone.” Dr. Lewis agrees with the Court’s initial finding of mentally ill and dangerous to the public and concludes that Respondent presents a substantial likelihood of engaging in future violence. Id. at 9. He has a lengthy and well documented history of engaging in violent and/or threatening behaviors, remains acutely psychotic (e.g., hyper-religious and paranoid delusional ideation, disorganization of thought), and lacks insight into his illness and need for psychotropic medication. … Respondent cannot be adequately supervised in an outpatient or other less restrictive setting. Such a placement would not provide adequate protection to the public at this time in Dr. Lewis’s opinion. Id. The Court agrees with Dr. Lewis. Id. The State never opposed Defendant’s transfer to FMH, however, there was a significant waitlist that was out of the State’s control. 2 ===== PAGE 003/020 ===== 27-CR-22-20527 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 12/15/2023 2:27 PM A. Defendant’s time at Hennepin County Jail since October 11, 2022. On December 1, 2023, defense argued dismissal due to the conditions of Defendant’s stay at the Hennepin County jail. However, defense provided no documentation or other offer of proof and therefore the State is asking the Court not to consider the arguments made. Specifically, defense argued, to their knowledge, Defendant had been in segregation the entirety of his time at Hennepin County Jail. Defense does not address any potential reasons for this segregation and does not provide any documentation to show the exact dates of segregation. Defense simply argues that each time they went to visit Defendant, he was in segregation. Specifically, defense stated they could only speak with Defendant through his food slot and the rooms were 6 x 12 feet and cement – sometimes with a mattress and sometimes with no mattress. Defense indicated the jail took away his reading and book privileges at times. Defense argued the conditions of Defendant’s stay at jail meets the threshold of cruel and unusual punishment. Additionally, defense provided dates where Defendant was seen by medical staff at the jail. Defense does not provide information on why medical staff was visiting Defendant on those dates, how long the visits were, or who requested the visits. From October 2022 – September 2023 hospital staff visited Defendant anywhere from 4 – 14 times each month. It is unclear if this was to conduct a routine check, administer medicine or respond to an emergency medical need. It is unclear if Defendant refused his medicine or if he was consistently taking it. Several times throughout his stay in jail and throughout evaluations Defendant was placed on suicide watch. It is unclear if the medical visits and segregation were for his own safety and protection. As mentioned above, with no documentation of jail records the State and Court cannot adequately respond to the above argument. However, although not jail records, the parties do have records to illustrate Defendant’s time in jail. First, the State received police reports of an alleged assault that occurred on October 13, 2023. Defendant has been charged with felony Assault in the Fourth Degree. See Complaint 3 ===== PAGE 004/020 ===== 27-CR-22-20527 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 12/15/2023 2:27 PM (Attachment 2). Further, the Order from June 22, 2023, provides some insight on Defendant’s time at the jail. In her order finding Defendant Mentally Ill and Dangerous, Judge Dayton Klein found: Respondent has been incarcerated most of his adult life, and when not incarcerated he reported multiple hospital visits and admissions. Id. He served 10 years in prison in the State of Iowa for a robbery conviction where he spent over seven years in segregation due to active symptoms of mental illness (i.e. mood instability, paranoia, hallucinations, and violent behavior). Id. at 8. Consequently, this Court found that (a) Respondent is mentally ill and mental illness is manifested by instances of grossly disturbed behavior or faulty perceptions; (b) as a result of Respondent’s impairment, he presents a clear danger to the safety of others and there is a substantial likelihood that he will engage in acts capable of inflicting serious physical harm on another; and (c) the less restrictive placement for Respondent is commitment as a person who has a mental illness and is dangerous to the public. Id. at 16. See District Court Findings and Order, filed June 22, 2023, Court File Number 27-MH-PR-23-26 (Attachment 1). Respondent has remained aggressive and assaultive while in jail. Id. at 12; Ex. 5; and Ex. 6. Id. Minnestoa Statute §253B.18, subd. 3, states, “If the court finds at the final determination hearing held pursuant to subdivision 2 that the patient continues to be a person who has a mental illness and is dangerous to the public, then the court shall order commitment of the proposed patient for an indeterminate period of time.” In the present case, Defendant was determined Mentally Ill and Dangerous and is being held indeterminately. Although bail was set for Defendant’s pending Assault Two case, due to the severity of the charges and public safety, Defendant was congruently being held on this basis. On December 11, 2023, Defendant was reevaluated regarding his competency to proceed – this report also provides context to Defendant’s behavior in Hennepin County Jail. The Court has received this evaluation, Competency to Proceed Evaluation – Rule 20.01, sub. 7, filed on December 12, 2023. According to Dr. Carlson, Defendant has ongoing and continuous homicidal thoughts. Id. Defendant’s describe these thoughts occur “all the time.” Id. Defendant has a long-standing history of violence, perpetrated when both sober or under the influence, and his risk for causing serious harm to others is high. 4 ===== PAGE 005/020 ===== 27-CR-22-20527 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 12/15/2023 2:27 PM Id. According to Dr. Peuschold, Defendant had a substantial likelihood of engaging in acts capable of inflicting serious physical harm to others in the future. Id. In multiple evaluations Defendant was on suicide watch and dressed in a suicide smock. Id. On October 25 – 27, 2023, during intake processes at St. Peters, Defendant was described as “struggling with hypersexuality and inappropriate behaviors” and appearing psychotic. Id. Defendant made sexually inappropriate comments to staff, exposed himself, and threatened other patients. Id. On November 9, 2023, Defendant was placed in seclusion after lunging at a female staff member. The following week, Defendant kicked a hole in the wall and threatened to kill staff. Id. Defendant’s medication was then increased; therefore, this behavior was presumably while Defendant was on medication. Id. On November 30, 2023, Defendant threatened to spit on staff. On December 5, 2023, Defendant refused to meet with his psychiatric provider. Id. On December 8, 2023, Dr. Lewis attempted to interview Defendant for an updated Rule 20.01 evaluation. Id. Defendant declined to participate in that evaluation. Id. Based on the totality of the circumstances, Dr. Lewis opined Defendant remained incompetent to proceed and concluded the lack of participate was likely due to continue severe mental illness. Id. The report also indicated that nursing staff at the Hennepin County jail stated that when Defendant takes his antipsychotic medication, he is a “different person.” Id. The State understands Defendant is suffering with significant mental illness and only brings up the above behavior to respond to defense’s Motion to Dismiss due to cruel and unusual punishment. Although we do not have jail records, we do have a documentation that illustrates Defendant’s behavior. The behavior sheds light on to why the jail had Defendant in segregation, took his books away and why medical staff responded to Defendant’s cell often. With no other jail documentation, this is the information the parties and Court can rely on. 5 ===== PAGE 006/020 ===== 27-CR-22-20527 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 12/15/2023 2:27 PM b. Defendant did not suffer cruel and unusual punishment at the Hennepin County Jail. Defense has not shown that Defendant suffered cruel or unusual punishment while at the Hennepin County Jail and therefore this Court should deny defense’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to the interest of justice. Generally, when determining whether a punishment is cruel or unusual, this court focuses on the proportionality of the crime to the punishment. See, e.g., Walker, 306 Minn. at 110, 235 N.W.2d at 814. The Supreme Court, in deciding whether punishment is cruel and unusual, asks if the punishment comports with the “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101, 78 S.Ct. 590, 598, 2 L.Ed.2d 630 (1958) (plurality). Evolving standards of decency were crucial in Thompson v. Oklahoma, when the Court found that the execution of a 15–year–old is “now generally abhorrent to the conscience of the community.” 487 U.S. at 832, 108 S.Ct. at 2697 (plurality). See also id. at 849, 108 S.Ct. at 2706 (O'Connor, J., concurring). State v. Mitchell, 577 N.W.2d 481, 489 (Minn. 1998). Importantly, regarding the argument of cruel or unusual punishment, the State was unable to find any caselaw that held the remedy would be dismissal of the charges. The records that have been made available clearly indicate Defendant suffers from a severe mental illness and continues to engage in dangerous behavior that put himself and others at high risk for violence. It is well documented that Defendant has been placed on suicide watch multiple times, has been assaultive and sexually inappropriate with staff and other patients and threatens to kill staff. Furthermore, it is confirmed that in Defendant’s prior 10-year imprisonment he spent most of that time in segregation. Defense has not provided any proof that jail staff treated Defendant by any means other than what was necessary for the safety of Defendant and others. Lastly, neither the State nor the Court had any control of how long the waitlist is at St. Peters. The State understands defense’s immense frustration at the length in time it took for a bed to become available at St. Peters, however, that does not rise to the level of cruel or unusual punishment and this criminal case 6 ===== PAGE 007/020 ===== 27-CR-22-20527 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 12/15/2023 2:27 PM is the incorrect venue to challenge what occurs at the jail. Defendant was being held indefinitely after the finding of Mentally Ill and Dangerous. If the bail had been reduced in the Second-Degree Assault case, or even if the case was dismissed, Defendant would have remained in custody at the Hennepin County jail until a bed became available at St. Peters. CONCLUSION Because there is no evidence that Defendant underwent cruel or unusual punishment, the Court should deny Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Respectfully submitted, MARY MORIARTY Hennepin County Attorney Dated: December 15. 2023 By: Jenna Dominik (#0400050) Assistant Hennepin County Attorney C2300 Government Center Minneapolis, MN 55487 7 ===== PAGE 008/020 ===== 27-CR-22-20527 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 12/15/2023 2:27 PM ===== PAGE 009/020 ===== 27-CR-22-20527 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota Attachment 1 12/15/2023 2:27 PM STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN PROBATE / MENTAL HEALTH DIVISION File No. 27-MH-PR-23-26 In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF Jarelle Thomas Vaughn, LAW, AND ORDER FOR DOB: 03/10/1981 INDETERMINATE COMMITMENT AS A Respondent. PERSON WHO IS MENTALLY ILL AND DANGEROUS TO THE PUBLIC The above-entitled matter came on for hearing before the undersigned Referee of District Court on May 10, 2023, pursuant to Minn. Stat. §253B.18, Subd. 2. Petitioner was represented by Annsara Elasky, Assistant Hennepin County Attorney. Respondent was present and was represented by Joel Fisher, Esq. Also present were examiner, Dr. Jason L. Lewis, Ph.D, LP; Respondent’s aunt, Kim Cunningham; and Nadia Garavito with case management services. The Court admitted the following evidence with no objection from Respondent: Exhibit 1 – Mentally Ill and Dangerous-60 Day Evaluation Report Exhibit 2 – Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Jason L. Lewis, Ph.D., LP Exhibit 3 –Hennepin County Medical Center (“HCMC”) records Exhibit 4 – Hennepin County Jail records Exhibit 5 – Jail incident report, April 11, 2023 Exhibit 6 – Jail incident report, April 25, 2023 The Court also took judicial notice of its Order for Commitment as Mentally Ill and Dangerous, dated February 27, 2023; and Dr. Dawn Peuschold’s examiner report dated February 21, 2023. At the conclusion of the trial Respondent’s counsel requested permission to submit written closing arguments. The Court received closing argument from Respondent on May 19, 2023, and from Petitioner on May 26, 2023, at which time the matter was taken under advisement. The Court, having heard the evidence adduced at the hearing and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, and upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein, now makes the following: ===== PAGE 010/020 ===== 27-CR-22-20527 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 12/15/2023 2:27 PM FINDINGS OF FACT 1. By Order filed herein on February 27, 2023, Respondent was committed to the head of Minnesota Security Hospital1 as a person mentally ill and dangerous to the public. He currently remains at the Hennepin County Adult Detention Center, pending placement. 2. The Treatment Report from the Forensic Mental Health Program (“FMHP”) pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 253B.18, subd. 2, was received by the Court on April 25, 2023. See Ex. 1. 3. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in this Court’s Order of February 27, 2023, are hereby incorporated herein and made a part of this Order by reference. In particular, Respondent is diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and schizoaffective disorder versus bipolar I disorder with psychotic features versus schizophrenia. Commit Ord., p. 6. Respondent has a history of mental illness dating back to age 14-15. Id. at 7. Furthermore, Respondent has been incarcerated most of his adult life, and when not incarcerated he reported multiple hospital visits and admissions. Id. He served 10 years in prison in the State of Iowa for a robbery conviction where he spent over seven years in segregation due to active symptoms of mental illness (i.e. mood instability, paranoia, hallucinations, and violent behavior). Id. at 8. Consequently, this Court found that (a) Respondent is mentally ill and mental illness is manifested by instances of grossly disturbed behavior or faulty perceptions; (b) as a result of Respondent’s impairment, he presents a clear danger to the safety of others and there is a substantial likelihood that he will engage in acts capable of inflicting serious physical harm on another; and (c) the less restrictive placement for Respondent is commitment as a person who has a mental illness and is dangerous to the public. Id. at 16. 4. Respondent is not currently receiving any mental health treatment or neuroleptic medication to treat his symptoms for mental illness while he is incarcerated. See Ex. 3, p. 15. However, he was scheduled to meet with a provider on May 12, 2023, to discuss neuroleptic medications. Respondent argues that Respondent is entitled to admission to a state operated treatment facility within 48-hours of the first commitment order (circa March 2, 2023). Minn. Stat §253B.18 read together with Minn. Stat §253B.10 subd.1 (“the 48-hour rule”) allows for a process for Respondent to receive treatment immediately after a commitment order issues and to evaluate the need for indeterminate commitment after one receives treatment. During the following 60 days 1 Minnesota Security Hospital is now referred to as the Forensic Mental Health Program (“FMHP”). ===== PAGE 011/020 ===== 27-CR-22-20527 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 12/15/2023 2:27 PM an examiner (in this case Dr. Lewis) prepares a "60-day treatment report", which would detail the many mental problems the Respondent might have, describe what efforts are underway to treat them, and to provide a risk assessment opining if Respondent remains mentally ill and dangerous to the public after having received treatment for his mental health symptoms. Because the examiner did not review any treatment records from the date of commitment to the present, he relied on records prior to the date of commitment and interview with the Respondent. Respondent argues that in this case Dr Lewis testimony was wholly consistent with Dr. Peuschold's, the Court Examiner in the original commitment. Furthermore, Dr. Lewis’ testimony discussed a risk assessment he conducted that could be different if Respondent were receiving treatment. Dr. Lewis further testified that there was nothing to prevent the Petitioner from bringing a request for a Jarvis order (forcing neuroleptic medication) while the Respondent was in jail. To date, no such order has been requested in the present case. Therefore, since Respondent is not receiving treatment, no attempts have been made by the jail to provide treatment, and the 48-hour rule has been violated, the Court should deny the request to indeterminately commit Respondent as a person who is mentally ill and dangerous to the public. This Court does not agree. 5. Dr. Lewis provided a persuasive report and credible testimony indicating Respondent continues to be a person who is mentally ill and dangerous to the public. Ex. 1, p. 9. Dr. Lewis interviewed the Respondent and reviewed records indicated in his report to include prior examiner reports, medical records, and court orders. He provided a risk assessment2 and diagnosed Respondent with the following: schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type (provisional); stimulant (cocaine and methamphetamine) use disorder, in a controlled environment; cannabis use disorder, in a controlled environment; alcohol use disorder, in a controlled environment; adult antisocial behavior (provisional); and rule out antisocial personality disorder. Ex. 1, p. 7. Dr. Lewis opines that Respondent’s short-term prognosis poor and he remains acutely psychotic. He is not receiving psychotropic medication and is not currently placed in a treatment setting. He lacks insight into his illness and need for treatment. He has a history of noncompliance with psychotropic medication while in the community. He has a long history of violence towards others as well as self-injurious behavior. Id. However, he does have a history of responding favorably to the administration of antipsychotic medication. The available records indicate treatment providers 2 Dr. Lewis utilized the Historical-Clinical-Risk Management 20, Version 3 (HCR-20V3) to assess Respondent’s risk for future violence. ===== PAGE 012/020 ===== 27-CR-22-20527 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 12/15/2023 2:27 PM have observed an appreciable decrease in his symptomatology during periods of compliance with antipsychotic medication. Thus, it is possible Respondent will demonstrate significant psychiatric improvement, develop insight, and maintain treatment adherence following the initiation of comprehensive mental health treatment (i.e. antipsychotic medication, psychoeducational treatment groups) provided in a highly structured and controlled setting. Id. Dr. Lewis further provides that Respondent has expressed paranoid ideation that could result in additional violence in the future, indicating that it is significant that Respondent endorsed chronic homicidal ideation during interviews with Drs. Carlson and Peuschold. He informed Dr. Carlson he thinks of hurting others “all the time,” and he told Dr. Peuschold he is “always thinking about hurting someone.” Dr. Lewis agrees with the Court’s initial finding of mentally ill and dangerous to the public and concludes that Respondent presents a substantial likelihood of engaging in future violence. Id. at 9. He has a lengthy and well documented history of engaging in violent and/or threatening behaviors, remains acutely psychotic (e.g., hyper-religious and paranoid delusional ideation, disorganization of thought), and lacks insight into his illness and need for psychotropic medication. Furthermore, Dr. Lewis opines that Respondent presents with several historical risk factors associated with increased baseline risk for violence; and presents with several uncontrolled clinical risk factors that can further exacerbate his already elevated baseline risk for future violence-his uncontrolled clinical risk factors include problems with insight, violent ideation, symptoms of major mental disorder, instability, and response to treatment/supervision. Dr. Lewis did testify that his risk assessment may be impacted if Respondent were receiving treatment with neuroleptic medications. However, despite this, Dr. Lewis concludes that the most appropriate treatment setting at this time based on Respondent’s level of risk, ongoing treatment needs, and history of noncompliance with treatment interventions while in the community is FMHP. Respondent cannot be adequately supervised in an outpatient or other less restrictive setting. Such a placement would not provide adequate protection to the public at this time in Dr. Lewis’s opinion. Id. The Court agrees with Dr. Lewis. Records indicate that Respondent had an appointment with a doctor regarding neuroleptic medications on May 12, 2023. Ex. 3, p. 15. However, no information was submitted to the court regarding any follow-up to this appointment. The records are unclear what, if any affect neuroleptics have currently made regarding Respondent’s risk assessment for future violence and dangerousness to the public. Further, records did not indicate Respondent requesting treatment and ===== PAGE 013/020 ===== 27-CR-22-20527 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 12/15/2023 2:27 PM being refused such treatment by the jail. In fact, records suggest nursing staff discussing options for medication on May 1, 2023, to where the Respondent replied that they have provided him benefit in the past and he stopped taking them due to weight gain. Id. at 14. The Court must determine if Respondent is presently mentally and dangerous to the public. Respondent has remained aggressive and assaultive while in jail. Id. at 12; Ex. 5; and Ex. 6. While seeing how Respondent reacted in treatment may have changed the Examiner’s risk assessment, the fact is that the Respondent has not yet had treatment and the Examiner believes Respondent continues to meet criteria for mentally ill and dangerous to the public. Respondent fails to cite authority for the proposition that the remedy for failure to treat him is denial of the final determination of mentally ill and dangerous. Furthermore, the legislature likely intended a second layer of judicial review prior to indefinite commitment as a procedural safeguard to catch any mistakes made in the initial commitment, as well as to consider any changed circumstances. Seeing how there is no change in Respondent’s circumstances and no mistakes have been asserted, the Court denies Respondent’s request to deny the indeterminate determination on the basis that Respondent has not yet received treatment. Respondent presents no reasoning or authority in support of the position that continued mentally ill and dangerous to the public status is not proved by clear and convincing evidence when the committed person has not begun receiving treatment. 6. Commitment for an indeterminate period of time to the Forensic Mental Health Program as a person mentally ill and dangerous to the public is currently the least restrictive, available, and appropriate disposition of this matter. Respondent continues to lack insight into his diagnosis and treatment needs. Existing safeguards are presently insufficient to manage his level of risk. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that the statutory requirements as defined in Minn. Stat. § 253B.02, subd. 17. have been met, and that Respondent continues to be a person mentally ill and dangerous to the public, 2. Respondent should be committed for an indeterminate period of time, pursuant to Minn. Stat. §253B.18, subd. 3. ===== PAGE 014/020 ===== 27-CR-22-20527 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 12/15/2023 2:27 PM ORDER 1. That Respondent is committed as a person mentally ill and dangerous to the public to the Forensic Mental Health Program for an indeterminate period of time. 2. That this commitment shall be subject to all provisions of Minn. Stat. § 253B.18. 3. Costs of care will be paid in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 246.50-55. Respondent may be responsible for all or a portion of the cost of treatment and/or board and lodging based on a sliding fee scale and the eligibility requirements set forth in Minn. Stat. § 246.50-55. Order Recommended by: BY THE COURT: _____________________________ __________________________ Referee of District Court Judge of District Court ===== PAGE 015/020 ===== 27-CR-22-20527 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota Attachment 2 12/15/2023 2:27 PM State of Minnesota District Court County of Hennepin 4th Judicial District Prosecutor File No. 23A12299 Court File No. 27-CR-23-23201 State of Minnesota, COMPLAINT Plaintiff, Summons vs. JARELLE THOMAS VAUGHN DOB: 03/10/1981 1010 Currie Ave Minneapolis, MN 55403 Defendant. The Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s): COUNT I Charge: Assault - 4th Degree - Peace Officer - Throws/transfers bodily fluids or feces at or onto officer Minnesota Statute: 609.2231.1(c)(2), with reference to: 609.101.2, 609.2231.1(c) Maximum Sentence: 3 YEARS AND/OR $6,000 Offense Level: Felony Offense Date (on or about): 10/13/2023 Control #(ICR#): 23017726 Charge Description: That on or about 10/13/2023, in Minneapolis, in Hennepin County, Minnesota, Jarelle Thomas Vaughn assaulted Victim, a peace officer, while that officer was effecting a lawful arrest or executing a duty imposed upon him by law, and intentionally threw or transferred bodily fluids or feces at or upon the officer. 1 ===== PAGE 016/020 ===== 27-CR-22-20527 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota STATEMENT OF PROBABLE CAUSE 12/15/2023 2:27 PM Complainant has investigated the facts and circumstances of this offense and believes the following establishes probable cause: On October 13, 2023, Jarelle Thomas Vaughn, born March 10, 1981, herein DEFENDANT, was an inmate at the Hennepin County Jail in Minneapolis, Hennepin County, Minnesota. During breakfast, deputies went into DEFENDANT’s G-Mod to feed DEFENDANT. Deputies opened DEFENDANT’s food pass; however, DEFENDANT had a towel covering it. As deputies were putting the food on the food pass DEFENDANT removed the towel and spat at the deputy. DEFENDANT’s spit hit the deputy, herein VICTIM, in the face. DEFENDANT has repeated incidents of violence in the jail, particularly towards staff. DEFENDANT has been in custody at the Forensic Mental Health St. Peter Tamarack Unit since October 25, 2023. 2 ===== PAGE 017/020 ===== 27-CR-22-20527 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota SIGNATURES AND APPROVALS 12/15/2023 2:27 PM Complainant requests that Defendant, subject to bail or conditions of release, be: (1) arrested or that other lawful steps be taken to obtain Defendant's appearance in court; or (2) detained, if already in custody, pending further proceedings; and that said Defendant otherwise be dealt with according to law. Complainant declares under penalty of perjury that everything stated in this document is true and correct. Minn. Stat. § 358.116; Minn. R. Crim. P. 2.01, subds. 1, 2. Complainant Allan McHugh Electronically Signed: Detective 10/30/2023 12:22 PM 350 S 5th St Hennepin County, Minnesota Minneapolis, MN 55415 Badge: 500 Being authorized to prosecute the offenses charged, I approve this complaint. Prosecuting Attorney Jenna Dominik Electronically Signed: 300 S 6th St 10/30/2023 11:53 AM Minneapolis, MN 55487 (612) 348-5550 3 ===== PAGE 018/020 ===== 27-CR-22-20527 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota FINDING OF PROBABLE CAUSE 12/15/2023 2:27 PM From the above sworn facts, and any supporting affidavits or supplemental sworn testimony, I, the Issuing Officer, have determined that probable cause exists to support, subject to bail or conditions of release where applicable, Defendant’s arrest or other lawful steps be taken to obtain Defendant’s appearance in court, or Defendant’s detention, if already in custody, pending further proceedings. Defendant is therefore charged with the above-stated offense(s). X SUMMONS THEREFORE YOU, THE DEFENDANT, ARE SUMMONED to appear as directed in the Notice of Hearing before the above-named court to answer this complaint. IF YOU FAIL TO APPEAR in response to this SUMMONS, a WARRANT FOR YOUR ARREST shall be issued. WARRANT To the Sheriff of the above-named county; or other person authorized to execute this warrant: I order, in the name of the State of Minnesota, that the Defendant be apprehended and arrested without delay and brought promptly before the court (if in session), and if not, before a Judge or Judicial Officer of such court without unnecessary delay, and in any event not later than 36 hours after the arrest or as soon as such Judge or Judicial Officer is available to be dealt with according to law. Execute in MN Only Execute Nationwide Execute in Border States ORDER OF DETENTION Since the Defendant is already in custody, I order, subject to bail or conditions of release, that the Defendant continue to be detained pending further proceedings. Bail: $0.00 Conditions of Release: This complaint, duly subscribed and sworn to or signed under penalty of perjury, is issued by the undersigned Judicial Officer as of the following date: October 30, 2023. Judicial Officer Amy Dawson Electronically Signed: 10/30/2023 04:26 PM District Court Judge Sworn testimony has been given before the Judicial Officer by the following witnesses: COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA State of Minnesota Plaintiff LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER RETURN OF SERVICE I hereby Certify and Return that I have served a copy of this vs. Summons upon the Defendant herein named. Signature of Authorized Service Agent: Jarelle Thomas Vaughn Defendant 4 ===== PAGE 019/020 ===== 27-CR-22-20527 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota DEFENDANT FACT SHEET 12/15/2023 2:27 PM Name: Jarelle Thomas Vaughn DOB: 03/10/1981 Address: 1010 Currie Ave Minneapolis, MN 55403 Alias Names/DOB: SID: Height: Weight: Eye Color: Hair Color: Gender: MALE Race: Black Fingerprints Required per Statute: Yes Fingerprint match to Criminal History Record: No Driver's License #: SILS Person ID #: 714104 SILS Tracking No. 3362726 Alcohol Concentration: 5 ===== PAGE 020/020 ===== 27-CR-22-20527 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota STATUTE AND OFFENSE GRID 12/15/2023 2:27 PM Cnt Statute Offense Statute Nbrs and Descriptions Offense MOC GOC Controlling Case Nbr Type Date(s) Level Agencies Numbers 1 Charge 10/13/2023 609.2231.1(c)(2) Felony A4G07 MN0270000 23017726 Assault - 4th Degree - Peace Officer - Throws/transfers bodily fluids or feces at or onto officer Penalty 10/13/2023 609.2231.1(c) Felony A4G07 MN0270000 23017726 Assault - 4th Degree - Peace Officer - Penalty for violation of 609.2231.1(c)(1) or (c)(2) Definition 10/13/2023 609.101.2 No-Level A4G07 MN0270000 23017726 Minimum Fines – Victim Assistance Programs 6 ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-22-4898_Correspondence for Judicial Approval_2022-11-07_20240429040221.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-22-4898 defendant: TERRELL JOHNSON filing_type: Correspondence for Judicial Approval filing_date: 2022-11-07 pages: 002 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/002 ===== 27-CR-22-4898 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 11/7/2022 2:54 PM DIRECT CARE & TREATMENT – FORENSIC SERVICES November 7, 2022 The Honorable Lisa K. Janzen Judge of the Fourth Judicial District Court – Hennepin County Hennepin County District Court Hennepin County Government Center 300 S. 6th St. Minneapolis, MN 55487 RE: State v. Johnson, Terrell Dannie, Rule 20.01, subd. 7 competency evaluation Court Files: 27-CR-19-12466, 27-CR-19-19606, 27-CR-20-8926, 27-CR-20-20037, 27-CR-21- 19552, 27-CR-21-23233, 27-CR-22-1165, 27-CR-22-390, 27-CR-21-21578; 27-CR-22-1187; 27-CR- 22-5745; 27-CR-22-4898 Dear Judge Janzen, I am the Court Liaison for DHS Direct Care and Treatment- Forensic Services, and I write regarding continuing competency evaluations for the Defendant in the above-referenced case(s). The Defendant was found incompetent to participate in their defense under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 20.01 and they are civilly committed. Please be advised that the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department is able to conduct future competency evaluation(s) under Rule 20.01, subd. 7 in this matter. Costs for future continuing competency evaluations completed by the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department under Rule 20.01 would be charged to the Court pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 480.182 (4). If the Court would like the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department to conduct continuing competency evaluations in this matter, please appoint the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department to do so in the accompanying proposed order within 10 days from the date of this letter.1 The prompt issuance of an order appointing the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department will allow the agency to allocate resources appropriately for future evaluations. Please note that the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department will not conduct continuing competency evaluations in this matter absent an order appointing it to do so, even if the Defendant remains under civil commitment. Please also note that if the Court appoints the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department to conduct continuing competency evaluations in this matter, the assigned Forensic Examiner will need to review records relating to treatment and services the Defendant has received and/or is receiving. The Defendant’s treatment and service records are relevant to the Forensic Examiner’s review and evaluation and will assist them in providing a more comprehensive opinion regarding the Defendant’s current mental condition and 1 Although DHS is not a party to the Defendant’s criminal proceedings and has not consented to be a party, DHS is offering to provide examination services to the Court in the Defendant’s criminal proceedings. 1 ===== PAGE 002/002 ===== 27-CR-22-4898 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 11/7/2022 2:54 PM competency status. State and federal data privacy laws do not allow DHS Forensic Examiners access to treatment and service records absent a court order or a signed release from the Defendant. Accompanying this letter is an order wherein the Court can appoint the DHS Forensic Evaluation Department to conduct the next continuing competency evaluation (meaning, a single competency evaluation under Rule 20.01, subd. 7), or ongoing continuing competency evaluations (meaning, until the Defendant is found competent, the Defendant is no longer under civil commitment, or upon further action by DHS or the Court). The accompanying order also contains language that will authorize the release of the Defendant’s relevant records to Forensic Services for the assigned Forensic Examiner’s review. Thank you for your attention to this correspondence. Please feel free to reach out to me with any questions you may have. Sincerely, Amanda Burg, Court Liaison Direct Care & Treatment - Forensic Services 100 Freeman Drive St. Peter, MN 56082 Phone: 507-985-2659 amanda.r.burg@state.mn.us Copies: Hennepin County Court Administration Prosecuting Attorney Criminal Defense Attorney 2 ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-23-3459_Notice of Remote Hearing with Instructions_2023-12-05_20240430072900.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-23-3459 defendant: MUAD ABDULKADIR filing_type: Notice of Remote Hearing with Instructions filing_date: 2023-12-05 pages: 002 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/002 ===== Filed in District Court State of Minnesota Dec 05, 2023 2:19 pm State of Minnesota District Court Hennepin County Fourth Judicial District Court File Number: 27-CR-23-3459 Case Type: Crim/Traf Mandatory MUAD ABDULKADIR Notice of Remote Zoom Hearing 9115 OLD CEDAR AVE S APT 402 and Judicial Assignment BLOOMINGTON MN 55425 State of Minnesota vs MUAD ABDULKADIR You are notified this matter is set for a remote hearing. This hearing will not be in person at the courthouse. Hearing Information December 06, 2023 Hearing 10:00 AM The hearing will be held via Zoom and appearance shall be by video and audio unless otherwise directed with Judicial Officer Hilary L. Caligiuri, Hennepin County District Court. ➢ If you fail to appear a warrant may be issued for your arrest. For petty misdemeanors, a conviction will be entered if you fail to appear. You must: • Notify the court if your address, email, or phone number changes. • If this is the first time you’ve appeared in court, have your exhibits ready at the hearing and you will be given instructions at the hearing on how to submit them. If this is not the first time you’ve appeared, contact the judicial officer hearing your case for more instructions. Visit www.mncourts.gov/Remote-Hearings for more information and options for joining remote hearings, including how to submit exhibits. • Contact the court at 612-348-6000 if you do not have access to the internet, or are unable to connect by video and audio. • If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer and would like to apply for a court-appointed attorney before this appearance visit https://4thcourtspde.courts.state.mn.us or scan the QR code to start the application. To join by internet: 1. Type https://zoomgov.com/join in your browser’s address bar (example: bar at top of page on Google Chrome, Safari, or Internet Explorer). MNCIS-PAN-104 HENN-CR Pandemic Notice of Remote Zoom Hearing 11/20 ===== PAGE 002/002 ===== 2. Enter the Meeting ID and Meeting Password (if asked): Meeting ID: 160 368 8210 Passcode: 1234 3. Update your name by clicking on your profile picture. If you are representing a party, add your role to your name, for example, John Smith, Attorney for Defendant. 4. Click the Join Audio button in the lower left-hand corner of your screen. 5. Click Share Video. 6. Select to unmute (may need to tap screen to activate icons). To join by telephone (if you can’t to join by internet): Be sure you know how to mute your phone when you are not speaking and unmute it again to speak. 1. Call Toll-Free: 1-833-568-8864 2. Enter the Meeting ID and Meeting Password: Meeting ID: 160 368 8210 Passcode: 1234 3. To Unmute use *6 To receive an eReminder for future court dates via e-mail or text, visit www.mncourts.gov/Hearing-eReminders.aspx or scan the QR code to enroll. Dated: December 5, 2023 Hennepin County Court Administrator 300 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55487-0419 612-348-2040 cc: Haleigh Platz, St. Peter Robyn Uri, Attorney for Defendant MNCIS-PAN-104 HENN-CR Pandemic Notice of Remote Zoom Hearing 11/20 ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-23-3459_Probation Referral Notification_2023-12-06_20240430072858.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-23-3459 defendant: MUAD ABDULKADIR filing_type: Probation Referral Notification filing_date: 2023-12-06 pages: 001 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/001 ===== Filed in District Court State of Minnesota Dec 06, 2023 1:06 pm State of Minnesota District Court Hennepin County Fourth Judicial District State of Minnesota Court File Number: 27-CR-23-3459 v. SILS ID: 750871 Muad Abdulkadir Charge: Aggravated Robbery-1st Degree PROBATION REFERRAL FORM Investigation Division of Adult Field Services Referral Date: 12/06/2023 Due Date: Next Hearing: 01/26/2024 1:30 PM Referring Judge: Caligiuri Return report to (location or Judge): Custody Status: Out In Pending release (bail or conditions) *At St. Peter secure facility Release upon interview completion (bail or conditions) Interim commitment at: Assessment Pretrial Bail Evaluation DWI Assessment RANT (Risk & Needs Triage) Mental Health Requested: Substance Use (see form HC6141, if in custody) Financial Assessment/Ability-to-Pay Study (3 weeks) Felony PSI/PPI: Tier 4 - full PSI (IC = 3 weeks; OC = 6 weeks + 3 days) Tier 3 – short-form PSI (IC = 2 weeks; OC = 6 weeks + 3 days) Tier 2 – jail credit/criminal history/conditional release compliance (1 week) Tier 1 – jail credit/Guideline Worksheet (1 week) PPI (IC = 3 weeks; OC = 6 weeks + 3 days) GMD/MISD PSI: Domestic-Violence PSI (IC = 1 week; OC = 2 weeks) If PSI ordered, is there a plea negotiation? No Yes Proposed negotiation: Felony Only Possible reduction to GMD? No Yes Considering departure? Possible sentence as GMD? No Yes No Durational Dispositional Downward Upward Other: Post-Sentence Guideline Worksheet Criminal Record Summary Returned to Probation (violation resolved) DNA Sample Evaluation Notice: Psychological (complete separate order) Sex Offender (complete separate order) MuadAbdulkadir@gmail.com; Defense Counsel: ROBYN SARA URI Phone: 612-348-2433 Email: robyn.uri@hennepin.us Co-Defendant: Case: Comments: For reference: Tiered PPI and PSI Definitions Court Staff: This form must be emailed to probation according to the Probation Referral Scenarios instructions, and imaged into MNCIS. A Probation Referral Handout Form must also be given to the defendant if the defendant is to report to Probation in person. Ca HC 3214 (09/2022) ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-23-3459_Probation Referral Notification_2024-02-28_20240430072855.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-23-3459 defendant: MUAD ABDULKADIR filing_type: Probation Referral Notification filing_date: 2024-02-28 pages: 001 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/001 ===== Filed in District Court State of Minnesota State of Minnesota Feb 28, 2024 11:59 am District Court Hennepin County Fourth Judicial District State of Minnesota Court File Number: 27‐CR‐23‐3459 v. SILS ID: 750871 Muad Abdulkadir Charge: Aggravated Robbery‐1st Degree PROBATION REFERRAL FORM Investigation Division of Adult Field Services Referral Date: 02/28/2024 Due Date: Next Hearing: 04/24/2024 1:30 PM Referring Judge: Caligiuri Return report to (location or Judge): Caligiuri Custody Status: Out In Pending release (bail or conditions) Release upon interview completion (bail or conditions) Interim commitment at: Assessment Pretrial Bail Evaluation DWI Assessment RANT (Risk & Needs Triage) Mental Health Requested: Substance Use (see form HC6141, if in custody) Financial Assessment/Ability‐to‐Pay Study (3 weeks) Felony PSI/PPI: Tier 4 ‐ full PSI (IC = 3 weeks; OC = 6 weeks + 3 days) Tier 3 – short‐form PSI (IC = 2 weeks; OC = 6 weeks + 3 days) Tier 2 – jail credit/criminal history/conditional release compliance (1 week) Tier 1 – jail credit/Guideline Worksheet (1 week) PPI (IC = 3 weeks; OC = 6 weeks + 3 days) GMD/MISD PSI: Domestic‐Violence PSI (IC = 1 week; OC = 2 weeks) If PSI ordered, is there a plea negotiation? No Yes Proposed negotiation: PG sole count, 48 months stayed 3 years, 383 days credit (will be more at time of sentencing), remain law abiding, standard probation conditions, PSI, no contact with complaining witnesses, comply with terms of civil commitment. Dismiss 27‐CR‐23‐3460 Felony Only Possible reduction to GMD? No Yes Considering departure? Possible sentence as GMD? No Yes No Durational Dispositional Downward Upward Other: Post‐Sentence Guideline Worksheet Criminal Record Summary Returned to Probation (violation resolved) DNA Sample Evaluation Notice: Psychological (complete separate order) Sex Offender (complete separate order) MuadAbdulkadir@gmail.com; Defense Counsel: ROBYN SARA URI Phone: 612‐348‐2433 Email: robyn.uri@hennepin.us Co‐Defendant: Case: Comments: Def. is under civil commitment at St. Peter For reference: Tiered PPI and PSI Definitions Court Staff: This form must be emailed to probation according to the Probation Referral Scenarios instructions, and imaged into MNCIS. A Probation Referral Handout Form must also be given to the defendant if the defendant is to report to Probation in person. HC 3214 (09/2022) ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-23-3459_Sentencing Order_2024-04-24_20240430072853.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-23-3459 defendant: MUAD ABDULKADIR filing_type: Sentencing Order filing_date: 2024-04-24 pages: 003 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/003 ===== Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 04/24/2024 State of Minnesota District Court Hennepin County Fourth Judicial District Hennepin Criminal Downtown Court File Number: 27-CR-23-3459 Case Type: Criminal State of Minnesota, Plaintiff vs. MUAD ABDULKADIR, Defendant Date of Birth: January 01, 1994 Gender: Male Sentencing Date: April 24, 2024 Order Warrant of Commitment CASE CHARGES Count Statute Description Disposition Aggravated Robbery-1st Degree 1 609.245.1 Convicted Penalty Statute: 609.245.1 - Aggravated Robbery-1st Degree TERMS OF DISPOSITION OR SENTENCE: COUNT 1 Offense Description: Aggravated Robbery-1st Degree Offense Date: February 11, 2023 Level of Sentence: Felony SENTENCE DETAILS: COUNT 1 Commit to Commissioner of Corrections Ordered on April 24, 2024: - Commit to Commissioner of Corrections at the MN Correctional Facility - St. Cloud for 48 months. Sentence is stayed for 3 years. This sentence consists of a minimum term of imprisonment equal to two-thirds of the total executed sentence, and a maximum supervised release term equal to one-third of the total executed sentence, unless the sentence is life or life without the possibility of release. Court File Number: 27-CR-23-3459 Page 1 of 3 ===== PAGE 002/003 ===== Local Confinement Ordered on April 24, 2024: - Defendant is sentenced to 438 days in the Hennepin County Workhouse - Adult Corrections. Defendant is to serve 438 days. Credit for time served amount is 438 days. Monitoring Ordered on April 24, 2024: - Defendant is placed on supervised probation for 3 years, monitored by Hennepin County Community Corrections - Adult Field Services. Conditions Ordered on April 24, 2024: Defendant must comply with the following conditions: - Follow all State and Federal criminal laws. - Contact your probation officer as directed. Maintain contact with Probation as directed. - Tell your probation officer within 72 hours if you have contact with law enforcement. - Tell your probation officer within 72 hours if you are charged with any new crime. - Tell your probation officer within 72 hours if you change your address, employment, or telephone number. - Cooperate with the search of your person, residence, vehicle, workplace, property, and things as directed by your probation officer. - Sign releases of information as directed. - Give a DNA sample when directed. - Do not use or possess firearms, ammunition or explosives - Remain law-abiding - Obtain Permission from Agent before leaving the State - No contact with victim(s) - Stay a reasonable distance away from victim's residence Stay away from a three-block radius of any such person and where they live, work, or go to school. - No alcohol/controlled substance use With the exception of prescribed medications. - Random testing - Obtain employment - Follow all instructions of probation - 1. Continue and complete chemical health treatment and comply with all future recommendations as directed by Probation and/or St. Peter chemical health staff. 2. Continue and complete mental health treatment and comply with all future recommendations as directed by Probation and/or St. Peter mental health staff. - Restitution reserved Court File Number: 27-CR-23-3459 Page 2 of 3 ===== PAGE 003/003 ===== FINES / FEES: COUNT 1 Fines/Fees Amount Adjustment Amount Due Due Date Fine $ 50.00 $ 50.00 (Stayed) $ 0.00 October 21, 2024 Criminal/Traffic Surcharge $ 75.00 $ 75.00 (Waived) $ 0.00 October 21, 2024 Law Library Fees $ 3.00 $ 3.00 October 21, 2024 Public Defender Co- $ 75.00 $ 75.00 (Waived) $ 0.00 October 21, 2024 Payment Subtotal $ 203.00 $ 200.00 $ 3.00 This Fee information only relates to Count 1. Any Due Date may be affected by a payment plan. $50.00 is stayed until April 25, 2027. FINANCIAL SUMMARY Fines/Fees Due: $ 3.00 The amount due may not reflect all payments and credits, or all restitution owed. Visit https://mncourts.gov/PayFines to make a payment or to view updated balances or payment information. Contact court administration with any further questions. The court may refer the entire amount due on this case for collection if you fail to make any scheduled payment, and collection costs will be added. You have the right to contest a referral for collection based on inability to pay by requesting a hearing no later than the due date. Minn. Stat. § § 480.15, subd. 10c; 609.104. 04/24/2024 Date:_____________________ ______________________________________ _______________ ____________ Hilary L. Caligiuri Caligi giurri gi Judge d off District Court Court File Number: 27-CR-23-3459 Page 3 of 3 ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-23-3460_Probation Referral Notification_2023-12-06_20240430072938.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-23-3460 defendant: MUAD ABDULKADIR filing_type: Probation Referral Notification filing_date: 2023-12-06 pages: 001 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/001 ===== Filed in District Court State of Minnesota Dec 06, 2023 1:06 pm State of Minnesota District Court Hennepin County Fourth Judicial District State of Minnesota Court File Number: 27-CR-23-3460 v. SILS ID: 750871 Muad Abdulkadir Charge: Assault-2nd Degree-Dangerous Weapon PROBATION REFERRAL FORM Investigation Division of Adult Field Services Referral Date: 12/06/2023 Due Date: Next Hearing: 01/26/2024 1:30 PM Referring Judge: Caligiuri Return report to (location or Judge): Custody Status: Out In Pending release (bail or conditions) *At St. Peter secure facility Release upon interview completion (bail or conditions) Interim commitment at: Assessment Pretrial Bail Evaluation DWI Assessment RANT (Risk & Needs Triage) Mental Health Requested: Substance Use (see form HC6141, if in custody) Financial Assessment/Ability-to-Pay Study (3 weeks) Felony PSI/PPI: Tier 4 - full PSI (IC = 3 weeks; OC = 6 weeks + 3 days) Tier 3 – short-form PSI (IC = 2 weeks; OC = 6 weeks + 3 days) Tier 2 – jail credit/criminal history/conditional release compliance (1 week) Tier 1 – jail credit/Guideline Worksheet (1 week) PPI (IC = 3 weeks; OC = 6 weeks + 3 days) GMD/MISD PSI: Domestic-Violence PSI (IC = 1 week; OC = 2 weeks) If PSI ordered, is there a plea negotiation? No Yes Proposed negotiation: Felony Only Possible reduction to GMD? No Yes Considering departure? Possible sentence as GMD? No Yes No Durational Dispositional Downward Upward Other: Post-Sentence Guideline Worksheet Criminal Record Summary Returned to Probation (violation resolved) DNA Sample Evaluation Notice: Psychological (complete separate order) Sex Offender (complete separate order) Defense Counsel: ROBYN SARA URI Phone: 612-348-2433 Email: robyn.uri@hennepin.us Co-Defendant: Case: Comments: For reference: Tiered PPI and PSI Definitions Court Staff: This form must be emailed to probation according to the Probation Referral Scenarios instructions, and imaged into MNCIS. A Probation Referral Handout Form must also be given to the defendant if the defendant is to report to Probation in person. Cali HC 3214 (09/2022)