Court Opinion

ID: 9704406
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:34:36.827893+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:02.159015
License: Public Domain

J. H. Gillis, P. J.
(dissenting). Judge Kaufman has set forth the basic facts governing this case and I agree with his determination that only one of the two claims of error merit discussion.
After the defendant was referred to the forensic center for a competency evaluation, the results of that evaluation disclosed "moderate mental illness”, and the diagnostic report having been offered and received by stipulation, the court found the defendant mentally competent to stand trial. In my view a trial judge following such a determination of competency need not reevaluate the defendant’s competency at each subsequent proceeding unless unusual facts are called to the court’s attention which would warrant a further determination of competency. When a judge rec*187ommends that a defendant be given psychiatric treatment in prison, I do not think that this denotes that the judge has serious doubts about defendant’s competency nor do I believe that the trial court in the instant case did not recognize his ability to make a new independent determination of whether or not a new competency hearing was warranted.
I have examined the trial transcript and in particular that portion of the transcript of the proceedings quoted in Judge Kaufman’s opinion. It would appear to me to be very similar in nature to those that I have reviewed in many cases. I cannot conclude from a reading of this transcript that the defendant’s questions warranted the placing of the trial court on notice that he should at that point decline to accept a guilty plea; nor do I believe that the conduct of the defendant at the plea proceedings and at sentence, as evidenced by his questions and answers, should have put the court on notice that the defendant should have been returned to the forensic center for reevaluation.
I would affirm the defendant’s plea-based conviction.