Opinion ID: 2029955
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Competence of Appellate Counsel :

Text: Under this assignment, the petitioner charges that there should have been a determination of professional incompetence as to his appellate counsel in that he failed to assign the court's ruling upon a motion for discharge as reversible error. A review of the record discloses several valid reasons why the motion was properly denied. Even assuming the truth of the petitioner's factual allegations, other waivers and delays appear to have been chargeable to him. It would serve no useful purpose to relate all of the occurrences transpiring between the original date of detention and the date of the motion to discharge, and we will not expound upon them but will make a proper disposition of the issue in the manner most convenient to the Court. There were a number of motions for continuance interposed by the petitioner's first attorneys of record. Several different attorneys appeared for the petitioner after his initial detention and subsequently withdrew their representation. The petitioner acknowledges the motions filed by the first attorneys, but in avoidance of their consequences asserted in his motion for discharge and in the subsequent post conviction motion that they were not chargeable to him because such attorneys were not authorized to represent him. Assuming that the petitioner would have been entitled to a discharge but for the delays occasioned by attorneys not authorized, an assumption which we think the record does not support, the matter was, nevertheless, not subject to review upon appeal, because the record does not include a bill of exceptions containing the evidence introduced at the hearing upon the motion. Rather, the record discloses only the filing of the motion, which is set out in full, and that testimony was heard from the petitioner in support of the motion and from one of the attorneys whom he charged was representing him without authorization. Had appellate counsel raised the issue, the reviewing tribunal would have been powerless to reach it but could only have assumed the testimony given at the hearing failed to overcome the prima facie evidence of authority inherent in the attorney's appearance. State ex rel. Koch v. Vanderburgh Circuit Court, (1965) 246 Ind. 139, 203 N.E.2d 525; Anthony v. Dickey, (1947) 225 Ind. 502, 76 N.E.2d 253. Had the trial judge in fact erred in his ruling upon the motion, it would have been subject to a sufficiency review as are other issues of fact. Without a bill containing the evidence, however, there was nothing to present for review. Turner v. State, (1972) 259 Ind. 344, 287 N.E.2d 339; Stephens v. State, (1973) 260 Ind. 326, 295 N.E.2d 622; Cooper v. State, (1972) 259 Ind. 107, 284 N.E.2d 799. Petitioner argues that his competence to stand trial was not properly determined pursuant to Ind. Code 35-5-3.1-1. However, we have previously held that it is not required that the court hold a hearing but that the right to such a hearing is dependent upon the presence of reasonable cause to suspect that the defendant is incompetent to stand trial and that in view of the examining physicians' report of competence, a hearing was not required. Brown v. State, (1976) Ind., 346 N.E.2d 559; Cook v. State, (1972) 258 Ind. 667, 284 N.E.2d 81. Of course, if the court has doubts, notwithstanding the physicians' reports, he would be at liberty to proceed to a hearing.