Opinion ID: 854028
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Should a Competency Exam Have Been Ordered

Text: Sua Sponte ? Allen correctly states that a trial court is obligated to conduct a psychiatric examination and competency hearing where 'reasonable grounds' exist for believing the defendant is incompetent to stand trial. (Appellant's Br. at 114 (citing Ind. Code § 35-36-3-1)). We review a trial court's decisions on this point for abuse of discretion. Walker v. State , 621 N.E.2d 627 (Ind. 1993). We can see no reason why the trial court had the duty to act of its own accord as Allen now claims. Allen contends that notice of the insanity defense filed by his first attorney put the court on notice of his incompetence to stand trial. He maintains that the mere fact that this notice was filed obligated the trial court to order sua sponte a psychiatric evaluation. Allen argues this in spite of the fact that his appointed trial counsel withdrew both the notice and the motion for psychiatric examination (which had been granted) when abandoning the insanity defense. Essentially, present counsel asks us to oblige trial courts to second-guess defense counsel's strategy when the insanity defense is abandoned. We will not. A trial court is permitted, if not expected, to rely on the strategic judgment of counsel. In any event, a request for psychiatric examination is not evidence of incompetency. Cook v. State , 258 Ind. 667, 284 N.E.2d 81 (1972). There is no record of police awareness of Allen's alleged mental incompetence prior to or during interrogation. Likewise, there was no evidence tending to give the trial court reason to suspect that Allen was mentally retarded. We find no error.