Opinion ID: 203677
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Court's Failure to Conduct Second Competency Hearing

Text: In his final claim petitioner alleges that the trial court violated his constitutional right to due process of law because it failed to conduct a competency hearing sua sponte on the first day of trial or anytime thereafter, despite there being doubt regarding his competency. As with the related ineffective assistance claim, the SJC rejected this argument on the merits, reasoning that a trial judge is required to conduct a sua sponte inquiry only if a substantial question of possible doubt as to competence arises. Boateng, 781 N.E.2d at 1213. But here, [o]n the first day of trial, trial counsel withdrew his previously filed motion for a competency hearing as moot, and informed the judge that nothing had occurred within the past week to warrant a new inquiry. Id. The court concluded that [i]n these circumstances there was no substantial question that required the judge's sua sponte action. Id. It is clearly established by Supreme Court precedent that the criminal trial of an incompetent defendant violates due process. Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348, 354, 116 S.Ct. 1373, 134 L.Ed.2d 498 (1996). Due process also requires a court to give proper weight to the information suggesting incompetence which [comes] to light during trial, and hold a competency hearing sua sponte in the event that such evidence is brought to its attention. See Drope, 420 U.S. at 179, 95 S.Ct. 896 (holding that further inquiry on competency was required where petitioner's suicide attempt, during the course of trial, raised sufficient doubt as to competence). In this case, however, petitioner was determined to be competent a week prior to trial and no evidence was brought to the attention of the court indicating that its earlier competence determination needed to be revisited. We cannot say on these facts that the SJC's decision rejecting petitioner's claim was anything less than a reasonable application of federal law. Therefore, this claim, and all of petitioner's claims for relief, must fail.