Opinion ID: 1405581
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Competence Restored

Text: ¶ 17 About a year later, by letter dated April 18, 1994, Dr. Potts advised the court that Defendant was presently competent, although in need of continued medication and psychiatric treatment. In response to the letter from Dr. Potts, defense counsel requested a competency hearing and nominated Dr. Boyer to evaluate Defendant. The prosecutor again refused to nominate a mental health expert. At the hearing, the prosecutor called six Pima County employees who had contact with Defendant after his arrest. These witnesses were a jail librarian, a sheriff's office clerk, three sheriff's office correctional specialists, and a superior court release specialist. In general, these witnesses testified that Defendant seemed fine to them, he exhibited no bizarre behavior, he made routine purchases, and he reviewed legal materials in the jail in September 1991. ¶18 On June 29, 1994, Defendant took the stand. He wanted to testify, he said, [t]o prove that I am competent. He said he was prepared to go to trial next week, he was not mentally ill, and he had never been mentally ill. When asked if he was schizophrenic, Defendant said, Not personally, no. When Defendant stepped down, the court ordered that he continue to receive medication, and the court found that defendant's own testimony removed any doubt in the Court's mind about his competency. Defendant did an excellent job of representing himself, did an excellent job of responding to questions. Finding of the court the Defendant is competent.