Opinion ID: 1133529
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Failure to conduct a competency hearing, sua sponte.

Text: ¶ 12. House first insists that, although he did not request a competency hearing at or before his plea hearing, the trial court had reasonable grounds to believe that he was mentally incompetent to plead guilty and should have ordered a competency hearing sua sponte. ¶ 13. The United States Supreme Court has held that trial courts are obligated to conduct a competency hearing, either on the defendant's motion or sua sponte, if there is sufficient doubt about a defendant's competence. Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 180, 95 S.Ct. 896, 908, 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975); Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 378, 86 S.Ct. 836, 838, 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966). ¶ 14. For the purposes of reviewing a decision to forego a competency hearing, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has suggested the following test: Did the trial judge receive information which, objectively considered, should reasonably have raised a doubt about defendant's competence and alerted him to the possibility that the defendant could not understand the proceedings, appreciate their significance, or rationally aid his attorney in his defense[?] Lokos v. Capps, 625 F.2d 1258, 1261 (5th Cir.1980). The United States Supreme Court in Drope, 420 U.S. at 180, 95 S.Ct. 896 indicated that evidence of a defendant's irrational behavior, his demeanor at trial, and any prior medical opinion on competence to stand trial are all relevant in determining whether further inquiry is required. ¶ 15. To demonstrate that he was entitled to a competency hearing, House gleans the following from the record: (1) House shot himself in an attempted suicide, destroying the aggressive part of his brain. (2) House underwent treatment for a considerable length of time at Oakville Health Care Center in Memphis. (3) House was taking medication for seizures. (4) House was sent to Westhaven Home in Jackson, apparently because of his limited medical condition. ¶ 16. Before the court accepted House's guilty plea, the trial judge ordered an examination to be conducted relevant to his mental competence and his competence to stand trial. Margie Lancaster, M.D., of the Mississippi State Hospital responded with the following report: In our opinion, [House] has a rational as well as factual understanding of the charges against him and is capable of assisting his attorney in preparing a defense. We did not find any suggestion of a major mental disorder in this man. He may have some lingering impairment and personality changes from the gunshot wound; however, from what we saw today, he has made a good recovery from his injury. ¶ 17. Additionally, the trial judge thoroughly examined House concerning whether he was mentally alert and understood his decision to plead guilty. Judging from the transcript, House was lucid and engaged articulately in the exchange. He responded positively to each of the judge's questions and indicated that he was not under the influence of any intoxicating liquor, and that his medication for seizures did not in any way affect his ability to think clearly. House further indicated that he had no history of mental illness, that he had never been confined to a mental institution, and that he was presently thinking clearly. ¶ 18. Given Dr. Lancaster's conclusion and the lucid exchange between the judge and House, it appears that the facts and circumstances known to the trial judge at the time of House's guilty plea did not raise a sufficient doubt as to whether he was competent to plead guilty. Thus, the trial court did not err in foregoing a competency hearing.