Opinion ID: 2373536
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Pre Plea Competency Hearing

Text: Where the issue of mental competence has been raised, the trial court is required to conduct a specialized hearing to determine the competence of a defendant seeking to plead guilty. Willis v. United States, 468 A.2d 1320, 1323 (D.C.1983). However, a special competency hearing is not required `(1) where the hearing prior to entry of the plea established competence based on psychiatric evaluation; and (2) where no new factual issues pertaining to mental competence were raised in the motion to withdraw.' Carmichael v. United States, 479 A.2d 325, 327 (D.C.1984); See Hunter v. United States, 548 A.2d 806, 810 n. 10 (D.C.1988). Springs contends the trial court was required sua sponte to conduct a specialized hearing to determine whether he was mentally competent to enter guilty pleas. Willis v. United States, supra . He bases his argument on the claim that at the time he entered the plea he felt different from October, at which time he had been found competent to stand trial and that he felt like he needed to see a doctor as he didn't feel that he was in the right state of mind and he was having trouble concentrating and focusing on reality. Appellant further maintains he was not thinking clearly at the time of the plea because of his medication. Specifically, Springs stated that he began to think clearly after his dosage of medication was cut down subsequent to the entry of his guilty plea. We find appellant's argument unpersuasive. First, we note that the hearings on competency were conducted by Judge Wolf only months before the guilty pleas were received by him, and appellant's competence was established based on psychiatric evaluations and testimony. See Carmichael v. United States, supra, 479 A.2d at 327. A report submitted on September 9, 1988, by psychiatric personnel at St. Elizabeths Hospital concluded that Springs was competent to stand trial. In proceedings conducted on October 2, 1988, and October 12, 1988, which included the testimony of at least one medical expert, the trial court found appellant competent to stand trial. This was five months before the same judge conducted the plea proceeding. Moreover, appellant has failed to raise any new factual issues pertaining to mental competence. Appellant did testify at the November 2, 1989, hearing on the motion to withdraw his guilty plea, that he was not feeling like himself at the time of the plea and his medication caused him to be confused. The trial court, however, carefully addressed appellant's mental condition at the plea hearing by making an exhaustive inquiry with respect to that point. Furthermore, appellant's reliance on Willis is misplaced. In Willis, the defendant sought to withdraw his guilty plea claiming he was not competent at the time of the plea. This court held that the trial court was not required to conduct a separate hearing to determine if the defendant was competent to enter a guilty plea under circumstances where appellant was determined to be a malingerer. A similar diagnosis was made of appellant. In this case, the judge who took the plea was aware of both appellant's medical records and the testimony of examining psychiatrists who were of the view that appellant was using the competency issue to manipulate the system. In short, we find that no further inquiry was called for and that appellant is not entitled to relief on this ground.