State of Minnesota v. Kou Yang

Minnesota Court of Appeals June 17, 2024

Opinion

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A23-0579

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Kou Yang,
Appellant.

Filed June 17, 2024
Reversed and remanded
Larson, Judge

Pine County District Court
File No. 58-CR-22-456

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Ed Stockmeyer, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul,
Minnesota; and

Reese Frederickson, Pine County Attorney, Pine City, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Leah C. Graf, Assistant Public
Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Gaïtas, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Larson,

Judge.

NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION

LARSON, Judge

In this direct appeal from the district court’s judgment of conviction, appellant Kou

Yang argues that he was denied due process when the district court failed to employ proper
procedures to ensure Yang was not tried and convicted while incompetent. Because we

agree that Yang was denied due process, we reverse and remand to the district court. 1

FACTS

On June 13, 2022, respondent State of Minnesota charged Yang with third-degree

possession of a controlled substance pursuant to

Minn. Stat. § 152.023

, subd. 2(a)(1)

(2020). The charges were based on Pine County sheriff’s deputies confiscating a glass pipe

and several small bags containing a white crystalline substance from Yang’s person and

backpack after stopping him while he was walking alone on the shoulder of a two-lane

highway.

       As Yang’s criminal case progressed, his attorney developed concerns about Yang’s

competency, leading the attorney to request a competency evaluation under Minnesota

Rules of Criminal Procedure 20.01 and 20.02. The attorney based the request, at least in

part, on a competency evaluation in a prior case in which Yang was found incompetent.

Further, Yang made several concerning statements to the district court during a hearing on

August 9, 2022, that included: nonsensical statements about the Vietnam War, COVID-19,

and Watergate; naming himself a “king,” the “son of men,” and “the tabernacle of God”; and

stating that “this is a replay of life.” On August 19, 2022, the district court issued an order


1
  Yang separately argued the district court erred when it denied his motion to suppress
evidence that he claims the state obtained in violation of his Fourth-Amendment protection
against unreasonable searches and seizures. At oral argument, Yang’s counsel conceded
that if the district court denied Yang due process, all subsequent proceedings would be
invalid, including the contested omnibus hearing where Yang moved to suppress evidence.
Because we determine that Yang was denied due process regarding the competency
proceedings, and we agree with Yang’s counsel that all subsequent proceedings were
invalid, we do not reach Yang’s Fourth-Amendment argument.

                                              2
expressly finding “[t]here is reason to believe [Yang] may be mentally ill or mentally

deficient so as to be incapable of understanding the proceedings or participating in [his]

defense,” and ordering a rule 20.01 competency evaluation.

       A few days later, on August 22, 2022, the state filed an amended complaint,

reducing Yang’s charge to fifth-degree possession of a controlled substance in violation of

Minn. Stat. § 152.025

, subd. 2(1) (2020). Thereafter, Yang’s attorney filed a letter with

the district court. In that letter, the attorney noted the recent request for a rule 20.01

competency evaluation but stated that “Yang appears to be functioning much better now

that he has had some time to detox in the jail.” In addition, the attorney wrote that Yang

wished “to enter a straight plea,” and wanted “to be released to treatment.” The letter ended

with a request that the district court schedule a hearing.

The district court held a hearing on August 30, 2022. At the hearing, Yang’s

attorney requested an opportunity to consult with Yang to ensure Yang understood “what

he’s asking for and what is happening today.” Following the consultation, the district court

noted that it scheduled the hearing as a plea hearing and then asked Yang’s counsel “what

is the status today?” Yang’s counsel responded:

Your Honor, I don’t know what the status is. I originally asked
for a Rule 20. Mr. Yang said no, he’s feeling just fine, there is
no reason for a Rule 20. He wants to contest issues I don’t
think are things that should be contested. So I guess he really,
really wants a contested omnibus hearing and thinks this will
be dismissed if we have that. So I think we’ll set it for a
contested omnibus within time requirements.

3
The district court then set an omnibus hearing for September 20, 2022, to resolve Yang’s

motion to suppress the evidence seized from his person and backpack. Following the

hearing, the district court denied the motion and the matter proceeded to a two-day jury

trial. At the conclusion of trial, the jury found Yang guilty of fifth-degree possession of a

controlled substance. The district court entered judgment of conviction and sentenced

Yang to 21 months in prison. Yang appeals.

DECISION

Yang argues he was deprived of his right to due process because the district court

had reason to doubt his competency but did not employ appropriate procedures to ensure

he was not tried and convicted while incompetent.

“A defendant has a due process right not to be tried or convicted of a criminal charge

if he or she is legally incompetent.” Bonga v. State,

797 N.W.2d 712, 718

 (Minn. 2011).

“A district court’s failure ‘to observe procedures adequate to protect a defendant’s right

not to be tried or convicted while incompetent to stand trial deprives him of his due process

right to a fair trial.’”

Id.

 (quoting Drope v. Missouri,

420 U.S. 162, 172

 (1975)). “Whether

a [district] court observed procedures adequate to protect a defendant’s right not to be tried

or convicted while incompetent is a different question than whether the defendant is

incompetent.”

Id.

 Thus, a reviewing court should focus narrowly on “whether the [district]

court, in fulfilling its protective duty, should have conducted further inquiry.”

Id.

 (quoting

State v. Bauer,

245 N.W.2d 848, 852

 (Minn. 1976)). Whether undisputed evidence in the

record raised sufficient doubt regarding a defendant’s competency, such that the district




                                              4
court needed to conduct further inquiry, is a legal question we review de novo. See State

v. O’Neill,

945 N.W.2d 71

, 78 (Minn. App. 2020), rev. denied (Minn. Aug. 11, 2020).

       Under rule 20.01, subdivision 3, if a “prosecutor, defense counsel, or the court, at

any time, doubts the defendant’s competency,” the doubting attorney or the court “must

raise the issue” even without “[t]he defendant’s consent.” If the district court then

determines that there is reason “to doubt the defendant’s competency, the court must

suspend the criminal proceedings,” and follow the procedure outlined in the rule. See

Minn. R. Crim. P. 20.01, subd. 3 (emphasis added). In felony cases, the district court must

determine if probable cause exists that the defendant committed the offense or offenses

charged, and if probable cause exists, “the court must order an examination of the

defendant’s mental condition and set a Rule 20 hearing to occur no later than 60 days from

the date of the court’s order.”

Id.,

subd. 3(b).

We agree with Yang that the district court deprived him of his right to due process.

The district court issued an order for a rule 20.01 competency evaluation on August 19,

2022. In that order, the district court specifically found there was probable cause that Yang

committed the offense charged, and there was “reason to believe [Yang] may be mentally

ill or mentally deficient” such that he was “incapable of understanding the proceedings or

participating in [his] defense.” Rule 20.01 is clear that, under such circumstances, the

district court must order a competency evaluation and suspend the criminal proceedings.

While the district court did order an examiner to evaluate Yang’s competency, it failed to

suspend the criminal proceedings. Instead, the district court allowed the matter to proceed

to a plea hearing, a contested omnibus hearing, and through the entirety of trial to a

5
judgment of conviction and sentencing. Thus, we conclude the district court deprived Yang

of his right to due process when it failed to suspend the criminal proceedings and allowed

Yang to stand trial while the question of his competency remained unresolved.

Because the district court ordered a rule 20.01 competency evaluation but failed to

suspend criminal proceedings until the evaluation was complete, we conclude the district

court deprived Yang of his right to due process. As a result, all proceedings subsequent to

the district court’s August 19, 2022 competency-evaluation order are invalid. We therefore

reverse the judgment of conviction and remand to the district court to complete a rule 20.01

competency evaluation and for such further proceedings as may be necessary and

consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

Reference

Status: Published
Syllabus: In this direct appeal from the district court's judgment of conviction, appellant Kou Yang argues that he was denied due process when the district court failed to employ proper procedures to ensure Yang was not tried and convicted while incompetent. Because we agree that Yang was denied due process, we reverse and remand to the district court.