Court of Appeals of Arizona, First Division, Department E
Not for Publication – Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2008-145613-001 The Honorable Paul J. McMurdie, Judge The Honorable Joseph C. Welty, Judge
Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz, Chief Counsel, Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section And Melissa Swearingen, Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Appellee.
James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender Phoenix By Thomas Baird, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant.
LAWRENCE F. WINTHROP, Presiding Judge.
¶1Jill Fraley Manahan ("Appellant") appeals from her adjudication of guilty except insane and sentence for murder in the first degree and burglary in the second degree. She argues that, given her history of mental illness, the trial court erred when it accepted her waiver of constitutional trial rights without specifically determining the voluntariness of her waiver. She also argues that the court failed to fully inform her of the rights she waived. For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2On July 20, 2008, after being released from a psychiatric treatment facility, Appellant attempted to gain entry to her locked apartment by climbing a tree and jumping onto her balcony. Falling from the tree, Appellant crashed onto her elderly neighbor's patio. After the neighbor confronted her, Appellant went into the neighbor's apartment, took a kitchen knife, and stabbed the neighbor to death before exiting the apartment. Police arrived on the scene and later found Appellant on the floor of her own apartment, her clothes stained with blood. After being advised of her rights pursuant to Miranda, Appellant admitted to police that she killed her neighbor because it was "part of the story" and "God told her to" do it. On July 23, the State charged Appellant with one count of first degree murder, in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") section 13-1105 (West 2013),  and one count of burglary in the second degree, in violation of A.R.S. § 13-1507.
¶3Given the circumstances of the crime, Appellant underwent numerous mental health evaluations. Within a few days of her arrest, Appellant underwent an initial, brief assessment conducted by a psychologist. Psychiatric experts retained by the State and by the defense each evaluated Appellant over the course of the next year in anticipation of trial, primarily in an effort to determine whether Appellant was insane during the commission of the crimes. At the August 7 arraignment, the trial court invited the parties to file Rule 11 motions before the initial pretrial conference or comprehensive pretrial conference if Appellant's current competency was at issue. Neither party, nor the court on its own motion, sought a competency determination pursuant to Rule 11.
¶4On September 2, 2008, Appellant filed a notice of disclosure stating that she intended to raise an insanity defense at trial. Sometime in May 2009, Appellant discussed with her attorney waiving her right to a jury trial and submitting the record to the trial court for adjudication, in exchange for an agreed-upon plea of guilty except insane. At the July 10 change of plea hearing, the parties offered the court a written waiver of jury trial, a submitted record, and a change of plea to guilty except insane. Under the written stipulation, the court would determine whether Appellant was guilty of first or second degree murder.
¶5After conducting a colloquy, the trial court determined that Appellant "knowingly and intelligently waived the right to have a jury trial in this matter and that she has also knowingly and intelligently agreed to submit this record to the Court." On the basis of the jointly-submitted evidence, including the police reports and extensive psychiatric evaluations, the trial court adjudicated Appellant guilty except insane for murder in the first degree and burglary in the second degree. The court committed Appellant to the Arizona State Hospital and placed her under the jurisdiction of the Psychiatric Security Review Board for a period of 25 years on count one and 3.5 years on count two, with the terms running concurrently.
¶6On September 24, 2012, Appellant requested a delayed notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 32 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the trial court granted that request on October 23. On November 9, 2012, Appellant filed a timely delayed notice of appeal from the adjudication and sentence. We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to the Arizona Constitution, Article 6, Section 9, A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and 13-4033(A), and Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1.
¶7Appellant argues that, given her history of mental illness, the trial court erred when it failed to make an explicit finding that she was competent to waive her trial rights and that her waiver was voluntary. Appellant also argues that the trial court failed to apprise her of the range of sentence that she faced ...