NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM KEVIN MILES, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 16-0061

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2015-111849-001

The Honorable Alfred M. Fenzel, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Adele Ponce

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Legal Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Cynthia D. Beck

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. MILES

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Andrew W. Gould delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Peter B. Swann and Judge Patricia A. Orozco joined.

G O U L D, Judge:

¶1 William Kevin Miles (“Defendant”) appeals from his 

convictions and sentences for one count of possession of dangerous drugs 

and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia. He argues he was not 

competent to stand trial. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Defendant entered the U.S. Bank branch in downtown 

Phoenix. Because he was acting erratically, bank personnel went to the 

Phoenix Police office located across the hallway in the same building and 

asked officers to help remove Defendant from the bank. The officers 

contacted Defendant as he was heading out of the building. They asked 

Defendant for some identification and he provided his driver’s license. 

When the officers ran a records check they discovered Defendant had an 

outstanding warrant, so they arrested him and performed a search incident 

to arrest. 

¶3 During the search, the officers found a pack of cigarettes in 

Defendant’s left front pant pocket and a glass pipe in his right front pocket. 

Concealed in the cigarette pack was a plastic Ziploc bag containing a white 

crystalline substance that was later determined to be methamphetamine. 

As a result, Defendant was charged with one count each of possession of 

dangerous drugs, a class 4 felony, and possession of drug paraphernalia, a 

class 6 felony. 

¶4 Shortly after he was charged, Defendant’s counsel requested 

a Rule 11 evaluation. The court granted Defendant’s request and appointed 

two mental health experts to perform the evaluations. However, before he 

was evaluated, Defendant’s counsel withdrew the motion, stating that 

Defendant understood the charges and could assist in his defense. 

¶5 A few months later, Defendant’s counsel again requested a 

Rule 11 evaluation. Defense counsel explained that Defendant appeared to 

be psychotic, was responding to internal stimuli and suffering from 
STATE v. MILES

Decision of the Court

3

auditory hallucinations, and was expressing delusions of grandeur. The 

court granted Defendant’s motion and again appointed two mental health 

experts to examine Defendant. The State and Defendant later stipulated the 

court could determine Defendant’s competency based on the report of one 

expert, psychologist Bennette Dawson. 

¶6 Dawson found Defendant to be competent to stand trial. Her

report explained that Defendant exhibited an understanding of the roles of 

the parties and the legal charges and potential sentences he was facing. The 

court entered findings that Defendant understood the proceedings and was 

able to assist his counsel with his defense. Accordingly, the court found 

Defendant competent. 

¶7 On the first day of trial, before jury selection began, 

Defendant’s counsel again raised the issue of Defendant’s competency. 

Defense counsel expressed concerns over Defendant’s comprehension of 

the proceedings and informed the court Defendant was making statements 

that were not based in reality. The court engaged in a colloquy with 

Defendant, questioning him regarding the roles of the parties and the 

nature of the proceedings. Defendant recalled the incident giving rise to 

the charges against him and was aware of the nature of the charges. 

Defendant also displayed awareness of the fact that he had undergone a 

previous mental health evaluation and he was found competent. The court 

found reasonable grounds did not exist to order another Rule 11 evaluation. 

¶8 The court proceeded with trial. Defendant testified during 

the presentation of his case. During his testimony he expressed the belief 

that he was the CEO of the U.S. Bank branch he was in on the day he was 

arrested and that he owned 5,000 companies. When questioned regarding 

his possession of the methamphetamine and pipe, Defendant explained 

that he was unaware of the drugs concealed in the cigarette pack, and that 

he had confiscated the pipe from one of his apartment complexes and 

intended to safely dispose of it. 

¶9 Defendant was convicted on both counts and sentenced to 

concurrent sentences of 4.5 years for possession of methamphetamine and 

1 year for possession of drug paraphernalia. He timely appealed. 

DISCUSSION

¶10 Defendant argues the court erred by denying his request for 

a Rule 11 competency determination during trial and by failing to order 

Defendant be evaluated sua sponte following his testimony. 
STATE v. MILES

Decision of the Court

4

¶11 We review a trial court’s determination of competency for an 

abuse of discretion. State v. Lewis, 236 Ariz. 336, 340, ¶ 8 (App. 2014). We 

do not reweigh the evidence. Id. Considering the facts in the light most 

favorable to sustaining the court’s findings, “‘[w]e must determine whether 

reasonable evidence supports the trial court’s finding that the defendant 

was competent.’” Lewis, 236 Ariz. at 340, ¶ 8 (quoting State v. Glassel, 211 

Ariz. 33, 44, ¶ 27 (2005)).

¶12 “A defendant has a due process ‘right not to be tried or 

convicted while incompetent.’” State v. Kuhs, 223 Ariz. 376, 380, ¶ 13 (2010) 

(quoting State v. Amaya-Ruiz, 166 Ariz. 152, 161 (1990)); see also Cooper v. 

Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348, 354 (1996) (quoting Medina v. California, 505 U.S. 437, 

453 (1992)) (same). A defendant is incompetent to stand trial if “as a result 

of a mental illness, defect or disability a defendant is unable to understand 

the nature and object of the proceeding or to assist in [his] defense.” Ariz. 

Rev. Stat. (“A.R.S.”) § 13-4501; R. Crim. P. 11.1; Amaya-Ruiz, 166 Ariz. at 161-

62 (quoting Dusky v. U.S., 362 U.S. 402, 403 (1960)) (same). 

¶13 Competence to stand trial is a legal standard, not a psychiatric 

standard. Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S 389, 402 (1993). “Requiring that a 

criminal defendant be competent has a modest aim: it seeks to ensure that 

he has the capacity to understand the proceedings and to assist counsel.” 

Id.; see also Bishop v. Superior Court, 150 Ariz. 404, 407 (1986) (stating that 

“fundamental fairness requires that a defendant be armed with some 

minimal awareness of reality before the power of the state is exerted against 

him”). “The judge’s duty is to evaluate the data and determine ‘whether 

the defendant’s functional impairment is cumulatively so great that he fails 

to meet the minimum performance level necessary for the satisfaction of 

due process and the preservation of the integrity of the criminal adversary 

system.’” Id. at 409 (internal quotation omitted).

¶14 A trial court does not err in refusing to order a second 

competency hearing where a defendant proffers “no new information to 

call into question the court’s previous finding of competency.” State v. 

Lynch, 225 Ariz. 27, 34, ¶ 18 (2010). “Rule 11.3[] requires that a competency 

hearing must be held if reasonable grounds exist to support a request.” 

Bishop, 150 Ariz. at 407. If at any time it appears that the defendant’s 

competency is in doubt “[d]ue process requires the judge to raise the issue 

and hold the hearing sua sponte.” Id.; see also Amaya-Ruiz, 166 Ariz. at 162 

(stating that judge is under continuing duty to inquire into defendant’s 

competency). However, absent new evidence, a court may rely on an 

earlier psychologist’s report of a defendant’s competency without abusing 

its discretion. Lynch, 225 Ariz. at 34, ¶ 18. 
STATE v. MILES

Decision of the Court

5

¶15 Defendant argues the court should have ordered another Rule 

11 evaluation because his statements during the colloquy and during his 

testimony showed he was not competent to stand trial. However, 

Defendant’s statements were similar to those he made prior to his original 

competency evaluation, and following that evaluation, he was found 

competent.

¶16 Additionally, in contrast to his grandiose business testimony, 

when Defendant testified about his arrest for possession of the pipe and 

methamphetamine, he showed he was competent. Defendant recalled the 

cigarette pack that was found in his possession and the fact that it contained 

methamphetamine; he explained, however, that he was not aware it 

contained the drugs. He also acknowledged that he had the glass pipe in 

his pocket, but he explained the pipe was not his; rather, he was holding on 

to the pipe in order to dispose of it safely. 

CONCLUSION

¶17 For the reasons above, the court did not abuse its discretion 

in declining to order additional Rule 11 evaluations of Defendant. The 

record shows the court correctly determined that Defendant was competent 

to stand trial. We affirm Defendant’s convictions and sentences.