Opinion ID: 886072
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Mental Health Examination

Text: ¶ 38 On October 25, 1993, Hagen's trial counsel moved the District Court for an order pursuant to § 46-14-202, MCA, to require Hagen be examined by a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist to determine his fitness to proceed. Hagen was examined by William Stratford, M.D., and Herman Walters, Ph.D. Hagen alleges that prior to the examination, he was informed by his trial counsel that the District Court had ordered him to see a psychiatrist before the bond hearing. However, Hagen alleges he was not informed of his right to a confidential examination at the State's expense, or that his examination results could be used against him at sentencing. The evaluation results of both Dr. Stratford and Dr. Walters were shared with the District Court and the State. The District Court referred to the psychological reports and the presentence investigation report in the sentencing order. ¶ 39 Although the District Court concluded that the trial counsel's performance may have been deficient in making Defendant's pre-trial psychological examination available to the prosecution and to the Court, it also concluded that no prejudice resulted to the defense. The District Court also found that there was no evidence introduced at the postconviction hearing that making the report of the psychological evaluation available... had any effect on either the prosecution of the Defendant or his sentencing. Without such evidence, the District Court concluded that Hagen's appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise the issue on direct appeal. ¶ 40 As the defendant, Hagen carries the burden of showing that but for appellate counsel's performance, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Here, however, Hagen has not identified what information in the doctors' evaluations was damaging to his defense. Furthermore, we cannot conclude, based on facts before us, that Hagen's sentence was somehow lengthened based solely on the doctors' evaluation. While Hagen's psychological evaluation results deserved better protection, we cannot determine what prejudice occurred as a result of appellate counsel's failure and, therefore, conclude that the District Court did not err by rejecting Hagen's claim made on this basis.