United States Supreme Court Cases

 

FAILURE TO CHALLENGE COMPETENCE

 

 U.S. Court of Appeals Cases

 

 

1999: Hull v. Kyler, 
190 F.3d 88 (3rd Cir. 1999)

Counsel ineffective in murder case for failing to challenge competence to stand trial. Defendant was found incompetent shortly after arrest. Held at hospital for four years and then a competence hearing was held. The court-appointed expert who testified had seen the defendant 3 months before and testified in response to questions of understanding and ability to assist the defendant could "at that time." Defense counsel failed to cross-examine the expert, did not present any evidence, and conceded competence. Defendant promptly plead guilty to murder. In his third habeas petition, ruling under the amended standards of the AEDPA, the court held that counsel's conduct was deficient. If counsel had performed adequately the evidence would have revealed that the defendant had been found incompetent by at least eight doctors during his hospital stay on the basis of mental retardation and schizophrenia. One examination only two weeks before the court-appointed expert's examination found that the defendant was incompetent and there was no change in him from previous examinations. An examination by a hospital doctor following the court-appointed exam also concluded that the defendant was not competent. The discharge report strongly recommended additional hospitalization and treatment because not competent. Cross-examination of the court-appointed expert also would have revealed that his report stated that although the defendant's schizophrenia was in remission the remission was "fragile." Likewise, the report stated that although the defendant could exercise judgment that ability could break down easily under stress. The report also concluded that while the defendant was competent in non-stressful situations, his competence should be watched closely during any attempt at trial because he could easily breakdown. The court held that there was prejudice because the defendant need only establish that there was a reasonable probability that he was tried while incompetent not that he would not have been convicted. The court found the standards of the AEDPA met because the state court findings, based primarily on the guilty plea colloquy following the competence hearing, were "objectively unreasonable" under the clear Supreme Court precedents of Pate v. Robinson and Drope v. Missouri.

 

 

State Cases

 

2005: * Burt v. Uchtman, 
422 F.3d 557 (7th Cir. 2005).

Counsel ineffective in capital murder case (where the death sentence was later commuted by Governor Ryan) for failing to request a competence evaluation when the defendant plead guilty without any concessions and against the advice of counsel near the end of the state’s case-in-chief. Counsel’s conduct was deficient because counsel was aware that the defendant had been consistently medicated with anti-depressants and psychotropic drugs while in pretrial confinement. The only competence examination was conducted eight months prior to trial by and expert who did not even review the defendant’s prison mental health records. A defense psychologist examined the defendant in connection to a motion to suppress statements and found a borderline IQ, neurological impairments, and severe depression. During jury selection, the defense requested a continuance, which was denied, because the defendant was having difficulty sleeping and expressing his inability to assist counsel. Counsel’s conduct was deficient because counsel were aware of the defendant’s medications, his frequent mood swings ant that the defendant did not appear to comprehend legal advice. The state court had not addressed this prong of the Strickland test. The court found prejudice because there was “a reasonable probability that [the defendant] would have been found incompetent at the time he pleaded guilty if his attorneys had requested a competency hearing” because the only competence evaluation was 8 months prior to trial, failed to consider the effects of heavy medications, and could not have accounted for the repeated changes in prescriptions in the time after that evaluation until trial. Under AEDPA, the state court “unreasonably applied Strickland to the facts” because it “ignored a wealth of evidence.” [The court also held that the trial court should have sua sponte ordered a competence evaluation.]

2004: People v. Shanklin, 
814 N.E.2d 139 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004)

Counsel ineffective in attempted murder plea for failing to request a hearing on the defendant’s competence or fitness or, alternatively, asking the trial court to question the defendant carefully as to the plea he entered and the consequences. Following the defendant’s guilty plea, a presentence report disclosed that the defendant had been hospitalized three times for mental-health problems as a teenager. In addition, he was mildly mentally retarded and had significant problems retaining and receiving verbal information.

When confronted by a defendant, who may be mentally retarded, the trial court and both prosecution and defense may not simply rely on affirmative answers to rote questions to conclude the defendant understands the proceedings and the consequences of his plea.

Id. at ___.

It is incumbent on the attorney representing a mentally retarded defendant to make that fact known to the trial court and for the trial court to proceed with care in accepting a plea.

Id. at ___. Counsel’s conduct was deficient and prejudicial.

Matthews v. State, 
596 S.E.2d 49 (S.C. 2004)

Counsel ineffective in armed robbery, carjacking, and accessory after the fact to murder plea for failing to request a competence hearing prior to the defendant’s plea. The defendant had learning disabilities and took special education classes in school. Just one year before the crimes, the defendant had been in a near fatal car accident that caused significant frontal lobe, neurological damage. 

2001: In the Matter of Fleming, 
16 P.3d 610 (Wash. 2001) (en banc)

Counsel ineffective in burglary case for failing to advise the court at time of defendant's Alford plea that the defendant had been found incompetent by a defense expert authorized by the court for purposes of a diminished capacity defense. Deficient conduct found because one must be competent to stand trial or enter plea and competence cannot be waived. Prejudice found even though defendant was medicated prior to plea, no irrational behavior was apparent from the record, and there was no other indication to show that defendant did not understand the proceedings because the defendant "might have been found incompetent and should have had a competency hearing before entering a plea of guilty." Id. at 615.

1999: Woods v. State, 
994 S.W.2d 32 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999)

Counsel ineffective following guilty plea to second degree murder of estranged wife for failing to request a competence hearing when defendant attempted suicide on the morning of the scheduled sentencing. The defendant had been found incompetent and hospitalized for a number of months after arrest. Then, although found competent, experts still agreed that he was manic depressive and delusional. Even though defendant attempted suicide the morning the sentencing hearing was first scheduled, counsel failed to request an additional competence evaluation because she thought he seemed competent when she talked to him and the same as always because he was always depressed. The court held that "[t]his was not counsel's call," id. at 39, and counsel was ineffective for failing to request a competence evaluation following the suicide attempt.

1994: State v. Green, 
632 So. 2d 1187 (La. Ct. App.), writ denied, 637 So. 2d 464 (La. 1994)

Counsel ineffective for failing to object to inadequate proceedings used by court to determine competency and permitted mentally retarded defendant to plead guilty despite knowledge that defendant probably could not understand the proceedings.

1990: People v. Harris,
 460 N.W.2d 239 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990)

Counsel ineffective in arson case for requesting trial despite serious doubts concerning defendant's competency to stand trial and defendant's request for continuance so she could get mental help. In addition, at sentencing counsel effectively recommended a prison term despite defendant's request for probation and made no attempt to argue that prison term be short or argue any mitigation.

1989: *Leatherwood v. State, 
539 So. 2d 1378 (Miss. 1989)

Counsel ineffective for advising defendant to plead guilty based on belief that state would be limited in sentencing and could not present evidence of offenses which was an erroneous interpretation of law.

1988: *Curry v. Zant, 
371 S.E.2d 647 (Ga. 1988)

Trial counsel ineffective for failing to obtain independent psychiatric evaluation of defendant which would have rendered evidence that the defendant was not competent to waive his rights and plead guilty and was either incapable of distinguishing right from wrong or incapable of controlling the impulse to commit wrongful acts.