Opinion ID: 2594949
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Right to be present at competency hearing

Text: [¶ 18] Mr. Monroe asserts that he was deprived of his constitutional right to be present at the competency hearing. The Sixth Amendment and the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution guarantee an accused the right to be present during every stage of the criminal proceeding that is critical to its outcome if his presence would contribute to the fairness of the procedure. Skinner v. State, 2001 WY 102, ¶ 20, 33 P.3d 758, 765 (Wyo.2001). The question of whether a defendant has the right to be present at a specific phase of the criminal proceeding is an issue of law which we review de novo. Id., ¶ 19. [¶ 19] The district court granted Mr. Monroe's motion for an evaluation. Dr. Abram Hitt, staff psychologist for the State Hospital, conducted the evaluation and prepared a forensic report in which he concluded: [I]t can be stated with a reasonable degree of psychological certainty that Mr. Monroe has the basic capacity to comprehend his position, understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him, conduct his defense in a rational manner and cooperate with his counsel to the end that a defense may be interposed in his behalf. It is further concluded that the defendant can retain his basic capacity to proceed through the adjudicative process in the foreseeable future. [¶ 20] A competency hearing was scheduled. Mr. Monroe was not present because arrangements had not been made to transport him to the hearing. Defense counsel did not seek a continuance. Instead, defense counsel requested entry of a finding of competency to proceed based upon Dr. Hitt's report. The transcript reflects the following: The Court: [Defense counsel] is present representing the Defendant, [Prosecutor] is present representing the State, Mr. Monroe is not present. I believe arrangements weren't made to have him transported from the penitentiary. But really, the only matter before the Court, the proceedings were stayed pending evaluation at the state hospital on his fitness to proceed. The report indicates a finding that he is fit to proceed. And pursuant to the Statute, 7-11-303, If neither the State, nor the accused or his counsel contests the opinion referred to. . . relative to fitness to proceed, the Court may make a determination and finding of record on this issue on the basis of the report filed or the Court may hold a hearing on its own motion. Does the Defense wish that the Court make a finding of record on this issue on the basis of the report filed? [Defense counsel]: Yes, Your Honor, that's correct. For the record, since I have become counsel of record for the case, I have met with my client twice. The first meeting was a very lengthy type meeting. I have reviewed the state hospital evaluation with him. In fact, I read it to him and explained things word for word. So we did go through that very carefully. Based on the findings of the report and based on my interactions with my client, I do not contest the findings of the state hospital report. We would ask the Court at this time that we be able to unsuspend proceedings so we're able to set a trial date and get things rolling again in this case, Your Honor. The Court: Thank you. [Prosecutor]: Your Honor, the State also stipulates to the findings in the report, and would ask that the Court enter the appropriate order. The Court: All right. The Court has reviewed the report. And based on the reading of the statute that allows the Court to make a finding if neither the accused nor his counsel contests the opinion referred to, will rule on this. But I will rule that he is fit to proceed as stated in the report and set the matter for further proceedings. Anything further on State versus Monroe? [Prosecutor]: Not from [the] State, Your Honor. The Court: Okay. [¶ 21] Pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-11-303(f) (LexisNexis 2001), a hearing is required only [i]f the opinion relative to fitness to proceed is contested. [2] Dr. Hitt's opinion was not contested and supported a finding that Mr. Monroe was competent to proceed. Based upon the contents of the report and the lack of objection to the report, the district court was authorized to enter a finding of competency to proceed without holding a hearing. Because no actual hearing took place, Mr. Monroe's right to attend did not arise. We find no error in the procedure utilized by the court or in its determination that Mr. Monroe was fit to proceed. [3] [¶ 22] Affirmed.