Opinion ID: 2598126
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Did the district court err in accepting the appellant's guilty pleas without first establishing his mental competency?

Text: [¶11] The standard for mental competency of a defendant to proceed in a criminal case is set forth in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-11-302 (LexisNexis 2003): (a) No person shall be tried, sentenced or punished for the commission of an offense while, as a result of mental illness or deficiency, he lacks the capacity to: (i) Comprehend his position; (ii) Understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him; (iii) Conduct his defense in a rational manner; and (iv) Cooperate with his counsel to the end that any available defense may be interposed. Although the question of competency is a factual issue, the requirement that competency be established is a matter of law that is reviewed de novo. deShazer v. State, 2003 WY 98, ¶ 12, 74 P.3d 1240, 1244-45 (Wyo. 2003). [¶12] The appellant's present argument contains a procedural and a substantive element, both of which are statutorily based. First, the appellant contends that the district court violated Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-11-303(f) (LexisNexis 2003) by not making on the record a specific finding of competency to proceed. [2] Second, the appellant alleges that the district court violated its obligation under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-11-303(a) to suspend the proceedings upon its own motion, given the obvious evidence that the appellant was not fit to proceed. [3] [¶13] We find neither of these arguments compelling. Admittedly, the record reveals that the appellant was difficult, argumentative, egocentric, and highly suspicious of others. Nevertheless, both mental health professionals who evaluated the appellant, and both attorneys, reported to the court that the appellant did not suffer from a mental illness or deficiency that caused him to be incompetent to proceed. After both evaluation reports had been filed, the district court held a hearing for the purpose of allowing counsel to stipulate this conclusion for the record. While it might have been the better practice for the district court at that hearing to have actually stated on the record that he found the appellant competent to proceed, that was the practical effect of the hearing and of the court's follow-up comment: So, we need a trial date. Where there was but one ruling for the district court to make, no prejudicial error occurred in the court's failure to make that specific ruling. Follett v. State, 2006 WY 47, ¶ 13, 132 P.3d 1155, 1160 (Wyo. 2006). Furthermore, because the proceedings had already been suspended twice for the purpose of mental health evaluations, and there is no evidence that the appellant's mental condition changed thereafter, no duty on the part of the district court arose to suspend the proceedings yet again and order another evaluation. The same is true regarding the period of time between the change-of-plea hearing and the sentencing hearing: the district court was presented with no evidence of a change in the appellant's mental condition that would require another evaluation.