illness chronic paranoid schizophrenia and brain damage this all began when he was ten years old for the brain injury and then he developed psychotic symptoms as a teenager his two thousand and six guilty pleas to second degree murder and robbery should be vacated because at the time of the please there was a bonafide doubt as to his mental competency the trial court violated his right to proceed rule due process when a trial court should conduct a competency inquiry is whether there is a bona fide reasonable doubt as to the person's competency and the standard is would a reasonable judge in that  standard as to whether an inquiry should be conducted yes and it was conducted three times in this case beginning in one nine hundred ninety nine yes there were than is enough enough well your honor unfortunately a person's mental competency especially when it is has complexes in this case is often fluid so that's why in the drop case the united states supreme court emphasized that even when a court has done an inquiry into competency the trial court must be alert to changes in the mental condition of the defendant that might make further inquiry necessary and here we have a very long history of this case not only the case starting in one thousand nine hundred nine when the crimes were committed but before that starting in one thousand nine hundred four when mr west's paranoid schizophrenia was first diagnosed we know from the doctors reports that are in the record that he was first diagnosed with that disease years before for the crime in this case was committed and i think that informs our understanding of his behavior because there was always the suspicion and you see it in the doctors reports that he's faking symptoms in order to avoid a trial and that is there several times expressed by different experts but we also know that his diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia occurred years before the trial the incidents to be tried had occurred and that he had again and again been diagnosed with schizophrenia by various doctors he sought help for his honor as discussed in the brief there's an important exception to that that the united states supreme court discussed and pinetti and is also recognized in our deck in other cases in this court that when the state court does not apply the federal constitutional standard in handling the claim then review is do no go and not through the lens and in this case the court of appeal viewed the competency question the issue of whether or not a hearing should be held using the wrong standard they said mr west counsel did not raise substantial evidence of incompetency and so there was no need to hold a hearing that's actually the standard that should be applied at the conclusion of a competency inquiry whether or not he had met his burden of proof but the standard the federal constitutional standard for whether a hearing should be held at all is whether there's a bona fide a reasonable doubt as we discussed earlier so the because  state court did not apply the correct standard even under actually its own law they didn't apply the correct standard to the constitutional issue this court's review should be dunno i'm not under the deferential  of the district court proceedings and actually the procedural history of the district court is quite complicated because of the number of histories of amendments and also whether or not the trial the district court was going to consider a fourth amended petition so the issue was not raised in that way but but this court on review of the district court decision can and should look to whether or not the state court applied the federal constitutional standard and if it did not the court can review the issues you know under any standard the district the trial court violated mr west right to procedural due process because we know the last competency inquiry that had occurred in this case was in december two thousand and four when the trial court did hold a competency hearing and considered expert reports but then in two thousand and five and again in two thousand and six mr west through different trial lawyers asked the court to conduct an additional inquiry into his competency and there substantial change in like the nose paradox you never get there because you always got to have another competency hearing the as long as it doesn't agree with the defendant's view of things your honor i think it sounds like what the the issue the courts raising it is is would this have gone on in perpetuity every time they try to move the case forward he would have raised an issue as to his competency and maybe that's the case when one of the things that comes out in the record is that mr west fluctuating mental condition was d some degree to the fact that he was allowed to refuse his and i psychotic medication while he was in the jail and if he was in a mental hospital you can't he couldn't do that but since he was being held in the jail prior to trial that was one of the aggravating situations the trial court could have done something to address that in the sense of they could have obtained authorization to medicate him prior to trial against his will there were there are ram of these to move the case forward and restores competency at the same time the remedy was not to say throw up you know his hands essentially the judge and say he's just going to keep raising this i'm just not going to hold any more hearings because we do have a federal due process right only to be tried competent and so although this was clearly a difficult and frustrating situation and there had been many evaluations the answer was not to refuse to hold a hearing i am running out of time well you still have million forty percent thank you thank you as judge of several points out when is enough enough the fact that the petitioner had three full competency hearings before his request for a fourth distinguishes this case turn cite and rely on the controlling cases pate drop and medina v california we disagree with opposing counsel deference is d same feigning mental incompetence incompetency for purposes of delaying the proceedings counsel why wasn't that and on reasonable determination on backs in view of the history that he had been declared in this court occurred five and a half years into the filing of the complaint so over the five and a half year period a defendant had had been found incompetent twice and sent to a task a general state hospital and return d three three full evidentiary hearings on competency occurred this is the same trial judge that had considered this case over one and a half years of that five and a half year period and had presided over the very same third competency to competency hearing so the same trial judge who had this case for a year and a half and observed the defendant's actions and  ordered him removed from the courtroom for various reasons was in perfect it was in a perfect place to make that factual finding that in this particular case when this when this request for a fourth competency hearing occurred over this last week the same or the same feigning incompetency for purposes of delaying the proceedings we argued that under twenty to forty one that's a factual finding that must six if you could be more specific your honor well how can i be more specific and that is the two thousand and six report which accompanies determination was made in the record yes yes ok yes though the full record of the third competency proceeding is in the record yes the one realm i am referring to the specific finding made in excerpts of record page forty eight where the trial court stated that he had been presiding over the proceedings over the past week and over i'd like to quickly address some of the things that just came out during respondents argument the court is quite the factual findings that lead the trial court to the state court to decline a hearing or review under d two which is also in the maxwell case that cited in the br counsel states there were three full competency hearings actually there was one full competency hearing in this case with testimony back spurred the first inquiry into competency the evidence of that is not in the record except as to the extent it's referred to the record yes a factor is the defendant's mental health history as to whether or not the court the trial court made a mistake this history shows as the court pointed out during counsel's argument that mr west had been found incompetent twice and it did not appear to have been a contested issue initially so we know that he seriously mentally ill we know that he also fakes had symptoms at times and the doctors who evaluated him said that made him particularly difficult to evaluate and that weighs in favor of another hearing particularly prior to taking a plea the there was a difficulty there no difficulty in evaluating him incompetent the first time initially and he went  materials when the state hospital staff sent mr west back to court in order to be adjudicated they said we should be cognizant here of a speedy trial and i think what they were indicating was this person is is vulnerable to the compensation especially in the experts talked about this too in the conditions in the jail these people do much better as mental health patients in a hospital and so when he was restored to competency and sent back to jail there was this indication in the report to police hurry this up because he could be compensated and that informs the our evaluation of the entire situation we have somebody who is in and out of the jail and mostly in jail over all these years so that was a triggering condition that the trial court should we consider the trial courts in the best position this is right but a position of yes but we also in looking at the history here the trial court declined to hold a hearing in february of two thousand and six when the inquiry had been in december two thousand the entire time mr west been in the jail so he's not in a good situation for somebody with his brain injury and with his paranoid schizophrenia and having that much time passed without having an expert you ation was arguably not wise especially when trial counsel is saying he could he's attempting suicide he's got bloody bandages on his arms he's bizarre i can't consult with him those things should have led the trial court to conduct another