Before Terry, Ruiz, and Reid, Associate Judges.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Terry, Associate Judge
Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia
(Hon. Bruce D. Beaudin, Trial Judge) (Hon. Frederick H. Weisberg, Motions Judge)
Submitted December 9, 199
After breaking into a local bank, appellant Monte Malone was charged with felonious destruction of property (D.C. Code § 22-403 (1996)) and second-degree burglary (D.C. Code § 22-1801 (b) (1996)). On January 7, 1986, following a non-jury trial on stipulated facts, appellant was found not guilty by reason of insanity ("NGI"). At a hearing a few weeks later, appellant was adJudged mentally ill and dangerous and was committed to Saint Elizabeths Hospital for an indeterminate period. Appellant did not appeal from these rulings.
Ten years later, still under commitment to the hospital, appellant moved to withdraw his stipulation and to vacate the NGI finding. The trial court denied appellant's motion in a written order. From that denial he appeals; we affirm.
At trial in January 1986, defense counsel stipulated to the facts of the alleged offenses *fn1 and relied solely on a defense of insanity. Counsel introduced a report from appellant's examining psychiatrist, Dr. Howell J. Howard, stating that appellant "at the time of the alleged offense[s] . . . as a result of a mental disease or defect did lack substantial capacity to recognize the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law . . . ." The court then addressed appellant directly:
"The Court: All right. Mr. Malone?
The Court: You've been listening to what's going on here, haven't you?
The Court: What does this all mean to you?
The Defendant: I'm guilty of the fact that I did go into the bank with intentions of taking of value more than two hundred dollars, and I did break the window and I did -- I was informed that a medical report would be done on me and it was. I was listening to him and I am -- I think I'm capable [of] standing trial.
The Court: All right. Do you know that you don't have to do it this way? Do you know that you can to go to trial in front of a jury with a full jury and a Judge, and all the witnesses would come in, and it wouldn't be done this way. You know you have a right to do it that way, don't you?
The Defendant: Yes, sir. I realize it, but I'd rather not.
The Court: You'd rather do it this way?
The Court: You've talked with your lawyer ...