State of Minnesota, Respondent,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A16-1408

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Ashley Shayia Lee,
Appellant.

Filed July 24, 2017
Affirmed
Bjorkman, Judge

Ramsey County District Court
File No. 62-CR-14-3502

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

John J. Choi, Ramsey County Attorney, Peter R. Marker, Assistant County Attorney,
St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Lydia Maria Villalva Lijó,
Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Reyes, Presiding Judge; Bjorkman, Judge; and Hooten,
Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
BJORKMAN, Judge
Appellant challenges her conviction of aiding and abetting identity theft, arguing
that the district court err ed in finding her competent to stand trial despite the Minn. R.

2
Crim. P. 20.01 evaluator’s contrary opinion. Because the district court gave proper weight
to the evidence produced and because the record adequately supports the district court’s
conclusion, we affirm.
FACTS
In May 2014, respondent State of Minnesota charged appellant Ashley Shayia Lee
with aiding and abetting identity theft. Lee applied for and was appointed a public
defender. The defense moved to suppress evidence and the district court granted the
motion in a pretrial order. The state appealed and Lee was represented by counsel . In
April 2015, this court reversed. After the Minnesota Supreme Court denied further review,
Lee returned to district court with a new public defender. In October 2015, Lee hired new
private counsel, who requested a rule 20.01 evaluation.
The district court granted the request, and an evaluator interview ed Lee in
November. Because Lee did not cooperate, the evaluator was unable to assess her
competency. A second evaluator, Scott A. Fischer, Ph.D., L.P., met with Lee in January
2016. In what he described as a “close determination ,” Dr. Fischer opined that Lee was
not competent to stand trial. But he further opined that she would become competent with
a minimal amount of education regarding the legal system.
The district court cond ucted a competency hearing, during which Dr. Fischer
testified and each party presented argument s as to Lee’s competency. The district court
found Lee competent to proceed. Lee agreed to a stipulated -facts trial pursuant to Minn.
R. Crim. P. 26.01, subd. 3. T he district court found her guilty as charged and stayed
imposition of sentence. Lee appeals.

3
D E C I S I O N
“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).
Minn. R. Crim. P. 20.01, subd. 2, provides that a defendant is incompetent and may not
participate in criminal proceedings if she is unable to: “(a) rationally consult with counsel;
or (b) understand the proceedings or participate in the defense due to mental illness or
deficiency.” The district court must determine whether “the greater weight of the
evidence” supports a finding of competency . Minn. R. Crim. P. 20.01, subd. 5(f). On
appeal, “[w]e independently review the record to determine if the district court gave proper
weight to the evidence produced and if its finding of competency is adequately supported
by the record.” State v. Ganpat, 732 N.W.2d 232, 238 (Minn. 2007) (quotations omitted).
I. The district court gave proper weight to the evidence produced.
In its order concluding Lee is competent to proceed, the district court made the
following findings of fact:
1. [Lee] was previously represented by two attorneys from
the Ramsey County Public Defender’s Office. Neither
attorney requested a Rule 20.01 competency evaluation.
2. [Lee] was represented by a third attorney during the pre-
trial appeal to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, and her
petition for Minnesota Supreme Court review. The
appellate attorney re presenting [Lee] did not request a
competency hearing.
3. [Lee] graduated from North High School, in
Minneapolis, MN. [Lee] had an Individual Learning
Plan (IEP) during high school.
4. [Lee] has attended or is currently attending Regis
Cosmetology School.
5. [Lee] has suffered a hearing deficiency as a result of a
medical procedure as a child.

4
6. [Lee] has no traumatic head/brain injuries, or any injury
involving loss of consciousness, seizure, or other
neurological event.
7. [Lee] does not suffer from drug or alcohol ab use or
addiction.
8. [Lee] has been diagnosed with ADHD and Unspecified
Anxiety Disorder. These disorders do not bear on
competency to stand trial. [Lee] is prescribed Adderall
for ADHD.
9. [Lee] has been diagnosed with Mild Intellectual
Disability and has a Full scale I.Q. score of 68.
10. [Lee] understands the charge in the complaint and is
motivated to dispute the charge. [Lee] also understands
the potential consequences of a finding of guilty, which
may include incarceration and probation. She further
understands that a plea of guilty would require her to
admit to the charge made against her.
11. [Lee] understands the role of her attorney and the trial
process.
12. [Lee] has not demonstrated unusual or delusional
beliefs about her legal situation. She has not made
comments about the role of her attorney, the charges
against her or the legal system that are grossly
unrealistic.
13. [Lee] has some misunderstanding of the role of the
judge, suggesting that the judge —and not the
prosecutor—would be trying to prove the charges
against her. This misunderstanding and confusion of
the judge’s role can be remedied by explanation and
reminders of the judge’s role.
14. [Lee] has demonstrated reasonably good adaptive
functioning skills. She lives independently although
she receives Pers onal Care Attendant (PCA) services
for approximately four hours per day and needs help
managing money and other daily tasks.

Lee argues that the findings show the district court did not give proper weight to
Dr. Fischer’s opinions. We disagree. In fact, the majority of the district court’s findings
reflect information and opinions contained in Dr. Fischer’s report. The court noted several
aspects of the report in concluding that, despite her mild intellectual disability, Lee

5
understood the charge against her and was “motivated to dispute” it, understood the
consequences of a guilty verdict, and understood the requirements of a guilty plea. Some
of the district court’s findings reflect its own observations over the almost two-year course
of the criminal proceeding. The district court determined that Lee understood “the role of
her attorney and the trial process ,” noted her few misunderstandings, and agreed with
Dr. Fischer that Lee’s competency could be assured if counsel or the district court provided
basic information about trial procedures. In short, the district court’s determination reflects
thorough consideration of the two competency-evaluation reports and Dr. Fischer’s
testimony in light of the court’s own experience with Lee over the preceding two years.
Lee cites no authority for her assertion that a district court errs when it reaches a
conclusion that differs from that of an expert witness. Fact-finders, including d istrict
courts, are not required to accept an expert’s testimony or recommendations. In a criminal
case involving a mental-illness defense, our supreme court noted that “the factfinder is not
bound by expert psychiatric testimony and may reject it entirely, even when the only
experts who testify support the defendant’s assertion of a mental-illness defense.” State v.
Roberts, 876 N.W.2d 863, 868 (Minn. 2016). Moreover, Dr. Fischer specifically stated
that the evidence pertaining to Lee’s competence was “mixed,” and his opinion represented
“a close determination.” On this record, we conclude that the district court gave proper
weight to the evidence produced in connection with Lee’s competency.

6
II. The greater weight of the evidence supports the district court’s competency
conclusion.

Lee next argues that the record supports the conclusion that she is incompetent. But
our independent review of the competency-evaluation reports, a psychological-evaluation
report, Lee’s participation in these proceedings, and her overall level of functioning shows
that the record adequately supports the district court’s conclusion that Lee is competent to
stand trial.
The first competency evaluat or did not reach any conclusions due to Lee’s
noncooperation. The evaluator noted that Lee’s “presentation and style during [the]
interview suggested a much lower level of functioning than information about her ability
to function in the community would suggest (i.e. [Lee] lives alone, cooks, cleans, etc.).”
And Lee’s mother acknowledged that some of the information Lee professed not to know
was information she should know. The evaluator concluded that Lee’s “scores [were]
lower than what would be expected by chance —raising concern that [Lee] was at times
able to identify the correct answer and purposefully selected an incorrect answer.”
Dr. Fischer acknowledge d that Lee’s mental -health diagnoses do not bear on her
competency and that her “level of functioning is more typical of defendants with
intellectual disabilities who are compe tent.” Dr. Fischer specifically reported that Lee
“was able to name the charge against her”; “was familiar with the allegations in the criminal
complaint and was motivated to dispute some of the information”; expressed awareness
that jail was a potential consequence of a guilty plea; understood the concept of probation;
“correctly identified her attorney’s role”; “was able to demonstrate an understanding that

7
pleading guilty means admitting to the charges against her”; and “understood the meaning
of pleading not guilty .” But Lee erroneously believed that she would prove she had not
committed the crime by speaking to the judge. Given Lee’s overall level of functioning,
including her enrollment in cosmetology school, Dr. Fischer opined that “there is a
substantial probability that she could attain competence if she received education from her
attorney or the court regarding the legal system.”
In addition to t he two competency-evaluation reports , the record includes a
September 2014 report from psychologists at Nystrom and Associates. Th is report does
not address Lee’s competence to participate in criminal proceedings. But it does
demonstrate Lee’s circumstances during the earlier stages of this case (when none of her
attorneys doubted her competence). T he report notes Lee’s history of consistent
employment and independent living. While Lee tested at a “low range” on measures of
intelligence and comprehension, she demonstrated borderline adaptive functioning and the
ability to “operate appropriately in her everyday life” with some assistance. Lee does not
assert a change in her level of functioning between the time of this report and the time at
which private defense counsel requested a competency evaluation.
Other relevant evidence includes information the district court personally gleaned
from observing Lee’s numerous court appearances. Lee was arraigned on May 16, 2014.
She obtained an attorney that day with whom she appeared in court three times prior to the
suppression ruling. Neither defense counsel nor the court raised any concerns about Lee’s
competence during those appearances. In July 2015, Lee appeared before the district court
with a new attorney. Again, no concerns about Lee’s competence were noted. The

8
subsequent sch eduled trial date was continued twice before Lee hired private counsel.
Only then did anyone close to Lee express concern for her competency.
Finally, evidence of Lee’s relatively high overall level of functioning further
supports the district court’s competency determination. It is undisputed that Lee completed
high school and was attending cosmetology school at the time of the hearing. She does not
suffer from addiction or any other mental-health condition that would bear on competency.
The distric t court found that Lee “demonstrated reasonably good adaptive functioning
skills. She live[d] independently although she receive[d] Personal Care Attendant (PCA)
services for approximately four hours per day and need[ed] help managing money and
other daily tasks.” This level of functioning, coupled with the district court’s directive that
counsel provide Lee with “explanation and reminders” about the trial process as the need
arises, supports the district court’s conclusion that Lee is capable of understa nding the
proceedings and participating in her defense.
In sum, t he record adequately supports the district court’s conclusion that Lee is
competent to stand trial.
Affirmed.