USA v. Stone

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
United States of America, )
) ORDER
Plaintiff, )
) Case No. 1:19-cr-074
vs. )
)
Donald Benny Stone, )
)
Defendant. )
______________________________________________________________________________
Before the Court is the parties’ stipulation regarding competency restoration filed on June
9, 2020. See Doc. No. 32. This matter began as a result of the Defendant’s motion to determine
competency filed on June 13, 2019. See Doc. No. 15. The Court granted the motion on July 9,
2019. See Doc. No. 20. Thereafter, the Defendant underwent an evaluation supervised by Dr. Ryan
Nybo, a forensic psychologist for the Federal Bureau of Prisons. On June 8, 2020, the Forensic
Evaluation of Dr. Nybo was filed with the Court. See Doc. No. 31. Dr. Nybo issued a detailed
report and evaluation and opined that the Defendant was not presently competent to stand trial. Dr.
Nybo further recommended the Defendant undergo competency restoration treatment under 18
U.S.C. § 4241(d).
The parties have stipulated that the Defendant is presently not competent to proceed. The
parties further agree a competency hearing is unnecessary in light of the findings detailed in the
report. The parties request the Court issue an order committing the Defendant to the custody of the
Attorney General, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d), for treatment in a suitable facility for a
reasonable period of time, not to exceed four months, as is necessary to determine whether there is
a substantial probability that in the foreseeable future the Defendant will attain the capacity to permit
the proceedings to go forward.
Case 1:19-cr-00074-DLH Document 33 Filed 06/11/20 Page 1 of 4

The determination of whether a defendant is competent to stand trial “is committed to the
discretion of the district court.” United States v. Whittington, 586 F.3d 613, 617 (8th Cir. 2009);
United States v. DeCoteau, 630 F.3d 1091, 1095 (8th Cir. 2011). A district court’s competency
determination will not be overturned unless arbitrary, unwarranted, or clearly erroneous. Id. Based
on the undisputed evidence in the record, the Court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that
the Defendant is not presently mentally competent to stand trial, and is incapable of participating in
the judicial proceedings to determine the validity of the criminal charges filed against her. The Court
incorporates by reference into this order each of the specific factual findings made by Dr. Nybo as
to the Defendant’s lack of competence to stand trial. The Court finds that because the Defendant is
not mentally competent and is unable to understand the nature and the consequences of the
proceedings against him, he is unable to properly assist in his defense. See 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d).
Dr. Nybo is a well-trained and competent professional whose opinions are reasonable,
straight-forward, and unchallenged. Dr. Nybo is a forensic psychologist who conducted extensive
reviews of the Defendant’s records and utilized several forensic tests and assessments to formulate
his opinions on competency. The Court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the Defendant
is not presently competent to stand trial. As a result, the Court is required to commit the Defendant
to the custody of the Attorney General pursuant to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d) in order to
determine his capacity to proceed to trial in the foreseeable future.
The statutory scheme set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d) affords the Court the discretion to first
determine whether the Defendant is competent to stand trial. However, the Eighth Circuit has
specifically held that the district court does not have the discretion, prior to a reasonable period of
hospitalization in the custody of the Attorney General, to determine whether the defendant will likely
2
Case 1:19-cr-00074-DLH Document 33 Filed 06/11/20 Page 2 of 4

attain the capacity to stand trial. U.S. v. Ferro, 321 F.3d 756, 761 (8th Cir. 2003). Instead, 18 U.S.C.
§ 4241(d) provides that the Attorney General “shall hospitalize the defendant for treatment in a
suitable facility . . . as is necessary” to determine whether the defendant’s condition will improve to
attain the capacity to proceed to trial. Thus, if there is a finding of incompetence to stand trial, there
must be a period of hospitalization. The district court is required to commit the Defendant to the
custody of the Attorney General for a reasonable period of time not to exceed four (4) months to
determine whether treatment would allow the trial to proceed. See 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d)(1). Such
steps are required under the current state of the law regardless of whether the defendant’s condition
is irreversible.
IT IS ORDERED that, in conformance with 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d), the Defendant shall be
committed to the custody of the Attorney General –
(1) for such a reasonable period of time, not to exceed four months, as is necessary
to determine whether there is a substantial probability that in the foreseeable future
he will attain the capacity to permit the proceedings to go forward; and
(2) for an additional reasonable period of time until –
(A) his mental condition is so improved that trial may proceed, if the court
finds that there is a substantial probability that within such additional period
of time he will attain the capacity to permit the proceedings to go forward; or
(B) the pending charges against him are disposed of according to law;
whichever is earlier.
Further, if at the end of the time period specified it is determined the Defendant’s mental condition
has not improved so as to permit proceedings to go forward, the Defendant is then subject to the
provisions of 18 U.S.C. §§ 4246 and 4248 (dangerousness assessment and hearing). If the BOP
determines that restoration is unlikely, the Court respectfully requests that a dangerousness
3
Case 1:19-cr-00074-DLH Document 33 Filed 06/11/20 Page 3 of 4

assessment under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. §§ 4246 and 4248 be conducted at the same time the
Defendant is hospitalized.
Dated this 11th day of June, 2020.
/s/ Daniel L. Hovland
Daniel L. Hovland, District Judge
United States District Court
4
Case 1:19-cr-00074-DLH Document 33 Filed 06/11/20 Page 4 of 4