Smith's Criminal Case Compendium
Table of Contents
State v. Wilkins, 44A23, ___ N.C. ___ (Dec. 13, 2024)
In this Caswell County case, the Supreme Court majority affirmed the Court of Appeals decision that defendant’s convictions were valid even though he never received the competency evaluation ordered by the trial court under G.S. 15A-1002. The Court concluded that defendant waived his statutory right to the competency hearing.
Defendant was arrested in 2018 for a scheme that involved cutting open footballs and filling them with drugs, then throwing the footballs over the wall to a prison yard. While defendant was in the Caswell County Jail awaiting trial, he was involved in assaulting a detention officer and was charged with assaulting a government employee and communicating threats. Defense counsel filed a motion questioning defendant’s competency for trial, and the trial court granted the request to have a competency evaluation. However, after the order was entered, defendant posted bond and was released. Throughout the trial proceedings, the competency evaluation was not raised again. After defendant was convicted, he raised the competency evaluation issue at the Court of Appeals, where the majority held that under State v. Young, 291 N.C. 562 (1977), defendant waived his statutory right to the hearing. Defendant appealed based on the dissent, which looked to State v. Sides, 376 N.C. 449 (2020), concluding the lack of a hearing violated defendant’s constitutional rights and justified a new trial.
Taking up the competency issue, the Supreme Court explained that the source of defendant’s right was statutory under G.S. 15A-1002, as he had “disclaimed a constitutional challenge at the Court of Appeals . . . and did so again before this Court.” Slip Op. at 7, n.2. This was significant as the right to a competency hearing under the United States Constitution is distinct from the statutory right under G.S. 15A-1002, and “the constitutional right to a competency hearing cannot be waived.” Id. at 11.
The Court explained that defendant “had several chances—over several years, with several attorneys, and in several procedural contexts—to assert the [statutory] right, but never did so.” Id. at 8. Even while out on bond, defendant could have pursued the competency evaluation, but the Court noted he did not do so. During the proceedings, defendant “squarely indicated that he was competent and ready to move forward with trial.” Id. at 10. Considering defendant’s argument that Sides overruled Young and required the trial court to enforce the competency evaluation order, the Court disagreed, explaining Sides did not concern the statutory aspect in question here, as “Sides—a case decided on purely constitutional grounds—did not overrule Young, which addressed both the constitutional and statutory standards.” Id. at 12. Here, Young controlled, and the Court held that defendant waived his statutory right by failing to pursue the competency evaluation or raise the competency issue at trial.
Justice Earls, joined by Justice Riggs, dissented and would have held that defendant’s right to a competency evaluation was preserved and the trial court was obligated to enforce compliance with the order.