Opinion ID: 1133529
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Guilty plea invalid because of incompetency

Text: ¶ 19. We next consider whether House's guilty plea was invalid on the ground that, despite the lack of a competency hearing, he actually was incompetent to enter a guilty plea. ¶ 20. The United States Supreme Court has held that an incompetent personregardless of whether a competency hearing was heldhas a due process right not to be convicted. Drope, 420 U.S. at 172, 95 S.Ct. at 904; Pate, 383 U.S. at 378, 86 S.Ct. at 838. A defendant is competent if he has `sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding.' Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 396, 113 S.Ct. 2680, 2685, 125 L.Ed.2d 321 (1993) (quoting Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 80 S.Ct. 788, 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960)). ¶ 21. Pursuant to Rule 3.03 of the Uniform Criminal Rules of Circuit Court, the trial judge found House to be mentally alert and to have a full understanding of the consequences of offering the [guilty plea]. Contrary to House's assertion of incompetency, House's testimony at the plea hearing and the report by Dr. Lancaster of State Hospital supports the trial court's finding. ¶ 22. This Court will not set aside findings of a trial court sitting without a jury unless such findings are clearly erroneous. Schmitt v. State, 560 So.2d 148, 151 (Miss.1990). House offered no evidence at the plea hearing or in his post-conviction relief motion to show that the trial court's finding of his competence to enter a guilty plea is clearly erroneous. Thus, House fails to show he was incompetent at the time of his guilty plea.