Opinion ID: 1613049
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether benson received ineffective assistance of counsel by his trial counsel's failure to request a competency hearing.

Text: ¶ 6. Benson argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a competency hearing. It is undisputed that Benson has suffered significant mental problems for several years. His primary diagnosis is paranoid schizophrenia. Benson was able to establish these medical conditions at the hearing on his petition for post-conviction relief. Furthermore, Breeland, Benson's trial counsel, testified that he had known Benson for a number of years and was familiar with his mental problems. However, the trial court found that Benson failed to meet his burden of proof in establishing that he did not know right from wrong at the time of the alleged offense. The trial court concluded that Benson had not met his burden of proof for establishing that he was criminally insane or that he was not competent to stand trial. ¶ 7. At the hearing Dr. Roden testified that schizophrenia was a treatable illness and that with proper medication, a person with this illness could function properly at work and at home. Dr. Roden testified that merely having the condition did not mean one could not distinguish right from wrong. In addition, Breeland testified at the hearing that he was Benson's trial counsel and that based upon his communications with Benson, he had no reason to think Benson would be incompetent to stand trial. ¶ 8. Breeland testified that he advised Benson not to testify because the jury would have the opportunity to recognize Benson's voice. Nevertheless, Benson refused Breeland's advice. Breeland also testified that Benson told him that he did not remember what happened on May 17, 1993, the day he sold cocaine to Lloyd. ¶ 9. The issue of whether a trial court erred by failing to order a competency hearing sua sponte has been considered by this Court in Richardson v. State, 722 So.2d 481 (Miss.1998). In that case, Richardson's attorney told the trial court that he was able to effectively communicate with his client. There was no evidence that Richardson suffered from irrational behavior or incompetence to a degree that would affect his right to a fair and just trial. Id. at 487. The failure to hold a competency hearing in that case was not error. ¶ 10. In Conner v. State, 632 So.2d 1239 (Miss.1993), overruled on other grounds, Weatherspoon v. State, 732 So.2d 158 (Miss.1999), this Court found that Conner suffered from schizophrenia, had a low intellectual capacity, and recalled no facts about the charges against him. Nevertheless, he was competent to stand trial. 632 So.2d at 1251. This was due to Conner's apparent ability to understand the proceedings of the case, to appreciate the significance of the proceedings, and to aid his attorney in his defense. Id. ¶ 11. In the instant case, there is no evidence in the record indicating that Benson had no understanding of the nature and significance of the proceedings against him and that he could not rationally assist his trial counsel in his defense. The only arguments used to support this claim is that the trial counsel knew of Benson's psychological problems and let him stand trial and testify as to the audio tape. Benson merely states that, based on those arguments, the trial counsel should have requested a competency hearing. There is simply no showing that Benson's trial counsel's failure to raise the issue of Benson's competency constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.