Opinion ID: 1135905
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Denial of Motion for Mental Evaluation-

Text: The motion filed by Minor on the first day of trial was entitled Motion For Mental Examination. In the motion counsel stated Dunn had expressed his desire that neither of his court appointed counsel represent him and he would represent himself. Neither attorney felt that Dunn was incompetent to stand trial, but they made the motion so the judge could order a mental evaluation or make an independent determination as to Dunn's competency to stand trial. The trial judge ruled: The motion of the attorneys for psychiatric examination to determine whether or not he is competent to waive counsel, I don't believe is needed. It's overruled. The motion if [sic] overruled. I don't believe its' needed to find as a matter of fact that he is competent to stand trial. Because of the serious nature of the crimes with which his is charge [sic], I am to [sic] going to discharge the attorneys. The case is set for trial, and we'll proceed in that, with trial. The judge made his own independent determination as to Dunn's ability to stand trial. He required both attorneys to remain at the counsel table to answer his questions, to assist him, and to do the best they could to protect his constitutional rights. The State contends the motion encompassed both Dunn's ability to stand trial and his ability to waive his right to the assistance of counsel and to represent himself. In the trial below the State directed the court's attention to Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 113 S.Ct. 2680, 125 L.Ed.2d 321 (1993). There the United States Supreme Court stated [a] criminal defendant may not be tried unless he is competent, and he may not waive his right to counsel ... unless he does so `competently and intelligently.' Id. at 396, 113 S.Ct. at 2685. [T]he standard for competence to stand trial is whether the defendant has `sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding' and has `a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.' Id. ( quoting Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 80 S.Ct. 788, 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960)). The Supreme Court spoke directly as to what is required of a defendant to waive his right to counsel in Godinez. [T]here is no reason to believe that the decision to waive counsel requires an appreciably higher level of mental functioning than the decision to waive other constitutional rights ... [T]he competence that is required of a defendant seeking to waive his right to counsel is the competence to waive the right, not the competence to represent himself... . [W]e held that a defendant choosing self-representation must do so competently and intelligently, but we made it clear that the defendant's technical legal knowledge is not relevant to the determination whether he is competent to waive his right to counsel, and we emphasized that although the defendant may conduct his own defense ultimately to his own detriment, his choice must be honored ... ... In addition to determining that a defendant who seeks to plead guilty or waive counsel is competent, a trial court must satisfy itself that the waiver of his constitutional rights is knowing and voluntary. Godinez, 509 U.S. at 399-400, 113 S.Ct. at 2687 (internal citations omitted). In the case at bar the trial judge denied the motion for a mental examination stating there was no need for one. This was a decision that was within the discretion of the trial judge. Johnson v. State, 511 So.2d 1360, 1365 (Miss. 1987). There is no abuse of discretion in denying a mental evaluation where there has been no proof presented to the judge. Wheeler v. State, 536 So.2d 1347, 1354 (Miss. 1988). When the trial court has made a finding that the evidence does not show a probability that the defendant is incapable of making a rational defense, this Court will not overturn that finding unless the finding was manifestly against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Laney v. State, 486 So.2d 1242, 1244-45 (Miss. 1986). Both of Dunn's court-appointed attorneys stated in the Motion for Mental Examination they did not feel as though Dunn was incompetent to stand trial. The trial judge observed Dunn's actions and demeanor in chambers and in the courtroom. The trial judge noted that Dunn was alert and understood the nature of the proceedings and the circumstances and consequences. Later, the trial judge commented as to his perception of Dunn. The record will reflect that the defendant is dressed nicely. I wish we had a video camera. He's clean, has a nice suit and shirt on, appears to be intelligent and apparently understands what's taking place. We find that the correct result was reached by the trial judge when he denied the motion for mental examination. The trial judge was certainly in a position to observe Dunn and his demeanor. Dunn participated in his defense by making decisions to remain silent, recall witnesses for testimony, and make a closing argument. There was no need for a separate mental examination.