Due Process Remedy for Delayed Competency Restoration: Dismissal Without Prejudice

Introduction

In State v. Desavio (Matthew), 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 25 (May 22, 2025), the Supreme Court of Nevada confronted a critical due process issue arising from the State’s failure to transfer an incompetent defendant to a psychiatric facility for court‐ordered competency restoration treatment. The defendant, Matthew Desavio, faced a Category B felony charge for making terroristic threats. After the district court found him incompetent and committed him to the Nevada Division of Public and Behavioral Health (“the Division”) for treatment, the Division failed to effectuate the transfer for nearly 90 days. When lesser remedial measures—contempt findings, monetary fines, and firm transfer deadlines—proved futile, the district court dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The State appealed, contending that under Nevada’s competency statutes and this court’s recent decision in State v. Gonzalez, dismissal was improper. The Supreme Court disagreed, affirming the dismissal and clarifying the availability of dismissal without prejudice as an appropriate remedy when ongoing due process prejudice persists.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Nevada unanimously affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the criminal complaint without prejudice. Key holdings include:

Remedy for Delay: A defendant’s due process rights are violated when the State fails to transfer an incompetent detainee “forthwith” for court‐ordered competency restoration treatment, and continued incarceration without treatment constitutes ongoing prejudice.
Dismissal Without Prejudice: Even absent irreparable evidentiary taint or prejudice to a fair trial, a dismissal without prejudice may be warranted to remedy unalleviated prejudice inflicted by procedural noncompliance.
Distinction from Gonzalez: Unlike the dismissal with prejudice at issue in State v. Gonzalez—an “extreme remedy” requiring a showing of aggravated circumstances and a balancing of societal interests—deserving dismissals without prejudice may follow failed lesser sanctions.
Judicial Inherent Authority: Courts may employ contempt orders, fines, and ultimately dismissal to enforce competency restoration mandates, ensuring that defendants are not left in legal limbo.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court’s opinion anchors itself in a line of federal and state authority addressing competency, due process, and appropriate remedies for procedural violations:

Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972): Established that due process demands that the nature and duration of civil commitment for competency restoration bear a reasonable relation to the purpose of treatment, and unreasonably long delays in restoration services implicate constitutional rights.
State v. Gonzalez, 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 33, 535 P.3d 248 (2023): Held that dismissal with prejudice is an “extreme remedy” appropriate only when (1) aggravated prosecutorial misconduct or irremediable prejudice to the defendant is shown, and (2) the court balances deterrence against society’s interest in prosecution. The court here distinguished Gonzalez and clarified that dismissals without prejudice do not invoke the same stringent standard.
Department of Health & Human Services v. Eighth Judicial District Court (Aliano), 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 28, 534 P.3d 706 (2023): Recognized the district court’s power to hold administrative agencies in contempt and impose monetary sanctions to enforce timely competency restoration transfers.
Morgan v. State, 134 Nev. 200, 416 P.3d 212 (2018): Approved the use of firm transfer deadlines—seven days—to compel competency restoration transport rather than dismiss charges outright.
Chasing Horse v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 63, 555 P.3d 1205 (2024): Demonstrated dismissal without prejudice as the proper sanction for significant grand jury misconduct when that misconduct “undermined confidence” in the process yet remained curable.
Other support: Lipsitz v. State (135 Nev. 131, 442 P.3d 138 (2019)), affirming competence as a prerequisite to prosecution; statutory provisions in NRS 178.400–178.425 governing competency evaluations and restoration orders.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court’s reasoning proceeds in three logical steps:

Due Process Violation and Prejudice: By statute and constitutional principle, a defendant found incompetent must be transferred “forthwith” to receive treatment. The State’s failure to effectuate this transfer for roughly 90 days—despite a court order and subsequent contempt ruling—imposed ongoing prejudice on Desavio. He was detained without meaningful progress toward competency, in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Type of Dismissal: The court presumed that the district court’s dismissal was without prejudice because the order contained no language indicating finality. This presumption contrasts with Gonzalez, where the court inferred a dismissal with prejudice from the order’s substantive language.
Sanctioning Hierarchy and Appropriateness: Recognizing its inherent supervisory powers, a court must employ the least severe sanction that will remedy the injury. Here, the district court first imposed contempt sanctions, monetary fines, and firm transfer deadlines, but the Division nonetheless failed to comply. Under these circumstances, dismissal without prejudice emerged as the only effective recourse to vindicate Desavio’s due process rights while preserving the State’s ability to refile charges once competency is restored.

Impact

The Desavio decision carries significant implications for Nevada’s criminal justice system:

Enforcement of Competency Deadlines: Hospitals and state agencies must prioritize compliance with competency orders or face contempt findings, fines, and potential dismissal of charges.
Judicial Toolkit: Trial courts are empowered to escalate from contempt orders to dismissal without prejudice when confronted with persistent noncompliance, ensuring that defendants are not indefinitely detained without treatment.
Clarity on Remedies: The opinion delineates the line between dismissal with prejudice (reserved for aggravated, irreparable misconduct) and dismissal without prejudice (available to remedy ongoing but curable prejudice).
Future Competency Proceedings: Defense counsel will be equipped to seek dismissal without prejudice when restoration delays exceed reasonable bounds and threaten due process.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Competency to Stand Trial: A defendant’s current ability to understand the charges and proceedings and to assist counsel in mounting a defense.
Competency Restoration Treatment: Specialized psychiatric or medical care provided in a secure facility to restore a defendant’s capacity to proceed to trial.
Due Process Violation: The deprivation of fundamental fairness when the State unjustifiably delays treatment that is statutorily and constitutionally required.
Contempt Order: A judicial order holding an entity or person in contempt—punishable by fines or other sanctions—when they disobey a court directive.
Dismissal Without Prejudice: Termination of criminal proceedings that leaves the State free to refile charges; used as a remedial sanction rather than a final immunity.
Dismissal With Prejudice: A final bar to prosecution on the same charges, traditionally reserved for severe or irreparable constitutional violations.

Conclusion

State v. Desavio establishes a crucial precedent in Nevada law: where a defendant’s due process rights are violated by substantial and unremedied delays in competency restoration, dismissal of charges without prejudice is an appropriate judicial remedy after lesser sanctions have failed. This decision strikes an essential balance—protecting individual constitutional rights, preserving prosecutorial interests, and reinforcing the judiciary’s inherent authority to enforce its orders. Moving forward, state agencies and trial courts alike must heed the “forthwith” mandate and ensure that incompetent defendants receive timely restoration treatment or risk a forced reset of the prosecution.