Opinion ID: 624307
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Appeal to the SJC

Text: As relevant here, Companioni argued in his appeal from the denial of his new trial motion that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at trial in two ways: first, because his attorney did not challenge Companioni's competency to stand trial, and second, because counsel did not pursue the mental impairment defense.
In arguing that he should not have stood trial, Companioni relied on his three pre-trial admissions to Bridgewater; his conduct during incarceration in the month prior to trial; an opinion that the upcoming trial worsened his mental health; the observations of trial counsel; and a post-conviction admission to Bridgewater that resulted in a finding of a twenty month period of incompetency to serve his sentence. Companonio, 833 N.E.2d at 143. He also argued that the pretrial observations of Drs. Veliz and -10- Moore were of little value because they took place several months before trial and paled against his post-conviction commitment to Bridgewater. Id. Affirming the denial of a new trial, the SJC observed that Dr. Veliz's competency report reflected the circumstances of Companioni's first Bridgewater admission. The court noted that, although Dr. Moore did not examine the records from Companioni's first Bridgewater admission, he did review Dr. Veliz's accurate report of that admission. Id. at 144. The SJC characterized the one-page record of Companioni's February 1987 Bridgewater admission as disclos[ing] nothing of significance, given that it lacked any indicia of mental illness. Id. The court further remarked that any claim that Companioni's condition worsened as a result of his return to jail for the six weeks prior to trial was speculation, noting that the transfer back to the jail conformed to the recommendations of the Bridgewater staff. Id. Finally, the SJC determined that Companioni's post-conviction Bridgewater commitment was essentially irrelevant, because the relevant timeframe for evaluating competency is the time of trial. Id. at 145 (citing Commonwealth v. Hill, 375 N.E.2d 1168, 1175 (Mass. 1978)). While the SJC acknowledged that a contemporaneous competency evaluation would have been preferable, the court also observed that Companioni submitted no expert testimony that he was incompetent and that when he testified at the Superior Court -11- evidentiary hearing, he made no claim that he had not understood the trial proceeding or was unable to communicate with counsel. Id. The court also rejected Companioni's argument that a first degree murder defendant who is diagnosed with a major mental illness, but who nevertheless refuses to consider an insanity defense, necessarily has raised a substantial question of possible doubt as to competency. The SJC concluded that, while Companioni may have been diagnosed, prior to trial, with a psychiatric condition . . . despite that condition, he was competent to stand trial. Id.
In denying Companioni's claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present a mental impairment defense, the SJC noted that counsel had investigated the defense by retaining Dr. Moore. The court also observed that Companioni's post-trial failure to present any expert opinion testimony that he lacked the requisite mental capacity by itself doomed his ineffective assistance claim. Id. at 146. Moreover, the SJC agreed with the Superior Court that counsel's decision to forego the mental impairment defense was not unreasonable, given that the decision was based on [Companioni's] personal choice against the advice of counsel. Id. -12- Finally, the SJC found no error in the denial of a second evidentiary hearing, noting that Dr. Bard's 2003 affidavit raised no substantial issue. Id.