On Point blog, page 4 of 5
Postconviction counsel may raise defendant’s competence to stand trial though trial court and trial counsel had no such concerns
State v. Jimmie Lee Smith, 2014 WI App 98, petition for review granted 6/12/15; case activity
If you’re working on a competency issue, read this decision. Neither the trial court nor defense counsel raised the subject of Smith’s competency at the time of trial. And Smith had not received a pre-trial competency exam. That’s why the postconviction court rejected Smith’s claim that he was incompetent at the time of trial. There was no contemporaneous evidence to support it. The court of appeals reversed, vacated the conviction, and remanded the case for a new trial.
Court of Appeals addresses burden of proof for determining competency during postconviction proceedings
State v. Roddee W. Daniel, 2014 WI App 46, petition for review granted 9/18/14, modified and affirmed, 2015 WI 44; case activity
When postconviction counsel questions a defendant’s competency to understand his or her § 809.30 appellate rights or ability to effectively communicate with counsel but the defendant asserts he or she is competent, defense counsel has the burden of proving the defendant is incompetent by the preponderance or greater weight of the evidence.
Defendant was competent to proceed despite “clouded judgment” that affected his ability to decide whether to accept plea agreement
State v. Maurice C. Hall, 2013AP209-CR, District 1, 10/15/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
A competency evaluation found Hall competent to proceed, though his mental health history caused Deborah Collins, the examiner, to “urge court officers to remain sensitive in the event of any significant changes in his overall mental status as such a factor may signal decline in his competency and warrant his reexamination.”
Habeas corpus – stay of proceeding due to petitioner’s incompetence
Ryan v. Gonzales, USSC No. 10-930; Tibbals v. Carter, USSC No. 11-218, 1/8/13
United States Supreme Court decision, reversing In re Gonzalez, 623 F.3d 1242 (9th Cir. 2010), and reversing and remanding Carter v. Bradshaw, 644 F.3d 329 (6th Cir. 2011)
These two cases present the question whether the incompetence of a state prisoner requires suspension of the prisoner’s federal habeas corpus proceedings.
Nicole Harris v. Sheryl Thompson, 7th Cir No. 12-1088, 10/18/12
seventh circuit decision (html) (90-page pdf download: here), granting habeas relief in 904 N.E.2d 1077 (Ill. App. 2009)
A significant decision in several respects – not least, attorney performance – that a summary post cannot hope to capture, save broad highlights. Executive summary: Harris was convicted of killing her 4-year-old son Jaquari, against a defense of accidental death (self-strangulation with an elastic band). The defense had potential,
TPR – Default as Sanction; Formal Advice as to Rights – Harmless Error
State v. Marquita R., 2010AP1981, District 1, 12/14/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Marquita R.: Carl W. Chesshir
TPR – Default as Sanction
Delay of over two-and-one-half years between petition and fact-finding hearing (despite statutorily mandated schedule of 45-day limit, § 48.422(2)), caused by Marquita R.’s “egregious” and “bath faith” conduct, intended to disrupt the TPR process, supported the trial court’s decision to find her in default as a sanction.Nor did the default ruling violate due process,
Eric D. Holmes v. Levenhagen, 7th Cir No. 06-2905, 4/2/10
7th circuit decision; on appeal after remand, Eric D. Holmes v. Buss, 506 F.3d 576 (7th Cir 2007)
Competency of Petitioner, While Pursuing Habeas Relief
Given that petitioner is clearly incompetent (“He is deeply confused, obsessed, and delusional”) court orders habeas proceeding suspended until state shows his condition sufficiently improved.
This is a death penalty case, and the decision in the prior appeal indicated that it had “found no noncapital case in which such a claim (petitioner’s incompetency,
State v. Zachary A., 2008AP3183-CR, District III, 3/16/2010
court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); Susan E. Alesia, Madison Appellate
Competency
Circuit court erred in not granting request for competency hearing, based on some jibberjabber about the PD and cost; plus circuit court wrong to limit competency hearing to those few cases where person “doesn’t have a clue what’s going on.”
(Snark: who bears costs when the court doesn’t have a clue what’s going on?) Trial counsel,
Appellate Procedure – Standard of Review – Competency of Defendant (pre-2010 Caselaw)
Go: here.
SVP Commitments – Competency to Stand Trial – No Due Process Right to Evaluation
State v. Ronald D. Luttrell, 2008 WI App 93
For Luttrell: Steven Prifogle, SPD, Milwaukee Trial
Issue: Whether a ch. 980 SVP respondent is entitled to § 971.14 competency evaluation.
Holding:
¶8 It is true, of course, that both Wis. Stat. § 971.13 and Wis. Stat. § 971.14 once applied to Wis. Stat. ch. 980 commitments, see Smith,