Opinion ID: 2630520
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Duty of Trial Court to Require Competency Hearing Sua Sponte

Text: ¶ 46 The court assistant argues that the magistrate and trial court should have, sua sponte, ordered a competency evaluation when Arguelles pled guilty, waived his preliminary hearing, and waived his right to counsel. The court assistant claims that the court's failure to do so violated Arguelles's due process rights. We discuss here Arguelles's competence to plead guilty and waive a preliminary hearing; we discuss his competence to waive counsel in the next section. See section II, infra. ¶ 47 It is well established that due process requires that a defendant be mentally competent to plead guilty and to stand trial. A mentally incompetent defendant can provide no defense, and proceedings against such a defendant do not comport with due process. Jacobs v. State, 2001 UT 17, ¶ 12, 20 P.3d 382 (quoting State v. Young, 780 P.2d 1233, 1236 (Utah 1989)); see also York v. Shulsen, 875 P.2d 590, 594 (Utah Ct.App. 1994) (Due process requires that a defendant be competent to plead guilty.); Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 172, 95 S.Ct. 896, 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975) (stating that prohibition against subjecting mentally incompetent defendant to trial is fundamental to adversarial system of justice). ¶ 48 Section 77-15-1 of the Utah Code mandates that [n]o person who is incompetent to proceed shall be tried for a public offense. Utah Code Ann. § 77-15-1 (2002). Section 77-15-2 defines a defendant's incompetency to proceed as an inability to have a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings against him or of the punishment specified for the offense charged; or . . . his inability to consult with his counsel and to participate in the proceedings against him with a reasonable degree of rational understanding. Utah Code Ann. § 77-15-2(1)-(2) (2002). We have held that [i]n determining whether a defendant is competent to plead guilty, the trial court must consider 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. State v. Holland, 921 P.2d 430, 433 (Utah 1996) (internal quotations omitted) (citing Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 396, 113 S.Ct. 2680, 125 L.Ed.2d 321 (1993)). `[C]ompetency is established when a defendant can, but not necessarily will, assist or consult with counsel.' State v. Lafferty, 2001 UT 19, ¶ 51, 20 P.3d 342 (quoting State v. Woodland, 945 P.2d 665, 668 (Utah 1997)). ¶ 49 The procedures for alleging incompetence are explained in the statutory scheme. Whenever a defendant is or becomes incompetent to proceed, a petition may be filed with the court by defense counsel, the defendant, any person acting on the defendant's behalf, the prosecuting attorney, or any person who has custody or supervision over the defendant. Utah Code Ann. § 77-15-3 (2002). Furthermore, while section 77-15-4 allows the court to raise the issue of the defendant's competency at any time, we have held that the trial court has no statutory duty to order a competency hearing in the absence of a petition. State v. Bailey, 712 P.2d 281, 285 (Utah 1985). [10] Thus, we have determined that in the absence of a competency petition, [a] trial court must hold a competency hearing when there is `a substantial question of possible doubt as to a defendant's competency at the time of the guilty plea.' Jacobs v. State, 2001 UT 17, ¶ 13, 20 P.3d 382 (quoting State v. Holland, 921 P.2d 430, 435 (1996)). ¶ 50 The issue before us, therefore, is whether there was a substantial question of possible doubt as to Arguelles's competence either when he pled guilty or in the pre-trial proceedings before the magistrate and the trial court. [11] In determining whether the lower court should have ordered a competency hearing, we `consider only those facts that were before the [trial] court when the plea was entered.' Jacobs, 2001 UT 17 at ¶ 18, 20 P.3d 382 (modification in original) (quoting York, 875 P.2d at 595). We thus examine the record to determine whether facts existed that should have created a substantial question of doubt as to Arguelles's competence to proceed, absent a petition to assess his competency. ¶ 51 In a hearing before the magistrate, a colloquy was conducted to determine whether Arguelles understood the consequences of waiving his right to a preliminary hearing. Arguelles affirmed that he believed himself capable of understanding the proceedings and the consequences of the waiver. The court assistant agreed. ¶ 52 In Arguelles's first hearing before the district court, the court conducted a guilty plea colloquy with Arguelles and discussed Arguelles's waiver of his right to a jury. Arguelles again confirmed his competency. ¶ 53 The record shows that Arguelles was coherent during each of the hearings before the magistrate and the trial court, that he responded to questions appropriately, and asked his own questions intelligently. Arguelles repeatedly affirmed his choice to waive the preliminary hearing, plead guilty, and waive a jury during the penalty phase. He indicated by words and actions that he understood the proceedings, and he fully participated in the hearings. The trial court found that Arguelles made knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waivers for each of his decisions. Furthermore, the magistrate and the trial judge had ample opportunity to observe Arguelles's demeanor and behavior in the courtroom. The record shows that Arguelles exhibited no mental defects at the hearings, that he understood the proceedings, answered the questions posed, and participated in the hearings. Neither standby counsel nor the State expressed any concern over Arguelles's competence to proceed, nor does the record contain any indication that he was not competent. [12] ¶ 54 Absent a petition, neither the magistrate nor the trial court was required to order a competency hearing where Arguelles appeared to clearly understand the proceedings and had the ability to consult with counsel about his case. We therefore find no violation of Arguelles's due process rights under Jacobs, Holland, or section 77-15-1 of the Utah Code.