Opinion ID: 2823800
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Beaty

Text: Â¶7Â Â Â Â Â Â Â The People charged Petitioner William Beaty with assault, criminal mischief, tampering with a victim or witness, and intimidating a victim or witness. The trial court appointed a public defender to represent Beaty in the case. A few months later, Beaty stopped communicating with his lawyer and filed a pro se motion to dismiss the public defender and appoint new counsel. Â¶8During a hearing on the motion, the trial court encouraged Beaty to resume communications with the public defender and told Beaty that the court would not appoint alternate defense counsel. As a result, Beaty informed the trial court that he would represent himself. The trial court strongly discouraged Beaty from proceeding pro se, appointed advisory counsel to discuss the dangers of self-representation with Beaty, and continued the hearing. Â¶9Â Â Â Â Â Â Â When the hearing reconvened a week later, the trial court advised Beaty pursuant to Arguello. Following this advisement, Beaty decided not to represent himself and, instead, accepted representation by the public defender. Beaty stated that his original decision to proceed pro se was animated by his failure to take hisÂ psychiatric medication to control bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. The trial court reappointed the public defender. Â¶10Â Â Â Â Â Â Â The public defender subsequently asked the trial court to order Beaty to submit to a mental health evaluation. After the evaluation, the public defender informed the trial court that the evaluationâs results âsquelched all fears with regards to [Beatyâs] competency and/or sanity.â Â¶11Â Â Â Â Â Â Â On the first day of the trial, Beaty expressed a renewed desire to represent himself because he disagreed with the public defenderâs case strategy. The trial court advised Beaty again pursuant to Arguello and verified that Beaty was taking his medication. Beaty reiterated his desire to waive counsel, and the trial court granted the request. Beaty represented himself throughout the trial. The jury found him guilty of all charges. Â¶12Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Beaty appealed his convictions, arguing that he was not competent to waive his right to counsel. The court of appeals disagreed with Beaty and affirmed the convictions. Citing its decision in Wilson and the United States Supreme Courtâs decision in Edwards, the court of appeals concluded that the trial court properly exercised its discretion when it allowed Beaty to waive his right to counsel. Beaty, slip op. at 5â10. The court of appeals did not specifically analyze whether to adopt a new standard of competence for mentally ill defendants pursuant to Edwards. Beaty petitioned this court for certiorari review of the court of appealsâ opinion.Â Â¶13Â Â Â Â Â Â Â We granted certiorari to determine whether to adopt a new competency standard for mentally ill defendants in light of Edwards. 2