Opinion ID: 3165528
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Competency at Sentencing

Text: [¶14] Middleton first argues that the evidence compelled the post-conviction court to find that Attorney Lawson-Stopps acted unreasonably by failing to request a continuance of sentencing to allow for a competency evaluation. [¶15] To sentence a criminal defendant while he is incompetent is a deprivation of his right to be heard and therefore is a violation of his constitutional right to due process. Haraden v. State, 2011 ME 113, ¶ 7, 32 A.3d 448. A defense attorney has the initial responsibility to alert a court to a defendant’s possible incompetence. State v. Dyer, 371 A.2d 1079, 1086 (Me. 1977). A defendant is competent to be sentenced if he is “capable of understanding the nature and object of the charges against him, comprehending his own condition in reference thereto, and cooperating with counsel to conduct a defense in a rational and reasonable 9 manner.” Haraden, 2011 ME 113, ¶ 7, 32 A.3d 448 (quotation marks omitted). A defendant who is emotional during sentencing may still be legally competent. Cf. State v. Nickerson, 2013 ME 45, ¶ 9, 66 A.3d 568. [¶16] Here, the evidence supports the court’s affirmative finding that Attorney Lawson-Stopps—who the court described as having considerable criminal defense experience—never noticed behavior at any time during the course of the representation, including at sentencing, that caused him to believe that Middleton was incompetent. The court further found that although Middleton was “overwhelmed emotionally and confused” at the sentencing hearing, this condition did not constitute a lack of competence. These findings are supported by the court’s direct observations of Middleton, the presentence psychological report, Attorney Lawson-Stopps’s testimony, and, inferentially, the testimony of Middleton’s character witnesses, none of whom questioned Middleton’s competence. [¶17] Accordingly, the court did not err by rejecting Middleton’s ineffectiveness claim based on his failure to prove that he was in fact incompetent or that Attorney Lawson-Stopps was on notice of any suggestion of incompetency.