Page 41 - TPA Journal March April 2023

Huffman acknowledged that Harris was still in jail dangerousness of the defendant— or release him.
but indicated that his mental health seemed to be Id.
improving. So Allgood submitted a Motion for
Reevaluation to the circuit court, asking the court Harris’s prolonged detention violated Jackson.
to again determine whether Harris was competent The circuit court held that he was incompetent and
to stand trial. The circuit court never ruled on that would not regain competency. Almost
motion, perhaps because the case was on its immediately after that, the chancery court
inactive docket, and Allgood never followed up. dismissed the civil commitment proceeding.
Harris stayed in jail. Four more years passed with Without a chance at his competency being
no change. That is, until a Mississippi news outlet restored or a pending civil proceeding that could
started asking questions about the case.4 At that result in his commitment based on dangerousness,
point, Scott, who had been elected Sheriff, Harris was entitled to go free. Yet he remained in
reached out to the newly elected district attorney jail for six years. This violated the commit-or-
to “try[] to push and get things moving” in Harris’s release rule that the Supreme Court recognized a
case. And then—the day before the newspaper half century ago.
published its article—the district attorney filed a …
motion for the chancery court to reconsider its Courts, including ours, have rejected jailers’ just-
dismissal of Harris’s civil commitment case. following-orders defenses in cases with much
Things moved fast after the reconsideration briefer unlawful detentions. A recent case
motion. After holding that its earlier dismissal was similarly held that “prolonged detention”—96
inadvertent, the chancery court finally took up the days—“without the benefit of a court appearance
civil case in June 2016. The court determined that violate[d] the detainee’s Fourteenth Amendment
Harris was a danger to himself and others, so it right to due process.”
committed him to a medical facility. While there,
Harris’s mental capacity was reevaluated one last We DISMISS Clay County’s appeal for lack of
time. The result was the same—he was not jurisdiction and AFFIRM the district court’s
competent to stand trial and had no hope of denial of summary judgment as to Huffman and
regaining competence. The circuit court dismissed Scott.
his criminal charges in 2017. Harris was released
to his family soon after. He continues to receive Harris v. Clay Co., Miss., 5 th Cir. No. 21-
medical care for his mental disorders. 60456, Aug. 24, 2022.
***************************************
(qualified immunity discussion omitted. Ed.) ***********************

The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a state from ELEC. HARRASSMENT STATUTE IS
confining a criminal defendant “solely on account CONSTITUTIONAL.
of his incapacity to proceed to trial” for more than
“the reasonable period of time necessary to Appellee was charged with harassment via
determine whether there is substantial probability electronic communications. See TEX.
that he will attain that capacity in the foreseeable PENAL CODE § 42.07(a)(7). He filed a pre-trial
future.” Jackson, 406 U.S. at 738. If there is no habeas writ application and motion to quash the
real probability that defendant will become charging instrument, arguing the electronic
competent, the state must institute civil harassment statute is facially unconstitutional
commitment proceedings—to gauge the and also unconstitutional as applied to him under

March-April 2023 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 37