Argued: February 10, 2015.
On the briefs:
Ronald W. Bourget, Esq., Law Offices of Ronald W. Bourget, Augusta, for appellant Collin R. Giroux.
Maeghan Maloney, District Attorney, and Fernand LaRochelle, Dep. Dist. Atty., Kennebec County District Attorney, Augusta, for appellee State of Maine.
At oral argument: Ronald W. Bourget, Esq., for appellant Collin R. Giroux.
Paul F. Cavanaugh II, Asst. Dist. Atty., Kennebec County District Attorney, Augusta, for appellee State of Maine.
Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, and HJELM, JJ.
[¶1] Collin R. Giroux appeals from a judgment of conviction entered by the trial court ( Marden, J.) following his guilty pleas to burglary (Class B), 17-A M.R.S. § 401(1)(B)(4) (2014); burglary (Class C), 17-A M.R.S. § 401(1)(A); three counts of theft by unauthorized taking (Class C), 17-A M.R.S. § 353(1)(B)(4) (2014); criminal mischief (Class D), 17-A M.R.S. § 806(1)(A) (2014); and violation of condition of release (Class E), 15 M.R.S. § 1092(1)(A) (2014). The court also revoked Giroux's probation imposed in an earlier case based on his admission to violating probation.
[¶2] Giroux contends that the court abused its discretion in denying his motion made prior to sentencing to withdraw his pleas and his admission. See M.R. Crim. P. 32(d). The motion was made on the ground that the discussion of Giroux's diagnosis of kleptomania in a presentence mental evaluation report constituted new evidence of a mental abnormality that would be admissible, pursuant to 17-A M.R.S. § 38 (2014), to raise a reasonable doubt as to his intent to commit the crimes charged. The State contends that a diagnosis of kleptomania cannot raise a reasonable doubt on the issue of intent. We affirm the judgment.
[¶3] In 2012, Giroux was on probation as part of a sentence imposed in 2008 for burglary and theft convictions. That year, the State charged him with the seven crimes listed supra and moved to revoke his probation. At Giroux's request, the State Forensic Service conducted two mental examinations, the first to determine his competence to stand trial, and the second to address issues of criminal responsibility and abnormal condition of the mind. See 15 M.R.S. § 101-D(1)-(2)
(2014). The examiner concluded that Giroux was competent, able to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct, and able " to engage in goal-directed, planful behavior at the times of the current ...