State v. Veal

972 A.2d 1009 (2009)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D is a real estate broker who has been involved in various land and logging disputes for many years. He was indicted in June 2003 for one count of timber trespass, and one count of theft by unauthorized taking. The court-appointed a public defender to represent D. A second public defender entered an appearance to assist in the defense because of his familiarity with real estate issues. D believed that he owned the timber and the property. He also believed that local and state authorities prosecuted him as part of an ongoing conspiracy to deprive him of property rights. The public defender conferred with two real estate attorneys to determine whether the D's claim had merit. It did not. D continued to insist that the public defenders seek funds for a property survey. D accused the public defenders of being part of the conspiracy against him and his family. Defense counsel filed a motion to determine competency. The first opinion determined that, although D suffered from a paranoid disorder, he was competent to stand trial. A second opinion concluded that he suffered from a delusional disorder and was incompetent. D filed a pro se motion requesting a finding that such evaluation was unnecessary and requesting new counsel. The court eventually held a competency hearing and found that D was incompetent to stand trial and ruled that he could not be restored to competency. It also held that D was not dangerous and granted D's motion to dismiss the criminal charges. D filed a pro se notice of appeal. Eventually, on remand, the trial court appointed D's current counsel. Counsel filed an amended ineffective assistance claim and a motion to vacate the competency finding alleging a denial of procedural due process. The court ruled against D on the ineffective assistance of counsel claim and denied his motion to vacate the finding of incompetence. It noted that defense counsel was ethically bound to raise the competency issue and that such action did not deprive D of procedural due process. D appealed only the denial of his motion to vacate, arguing that he was denied due process in the competency determination.