Defendants entitled to competency hearing in probation revocations

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Defendants are entitled to a competency hearing as part of their due process rights, the Indiana Court of Appeals concluded today, addressing the issue for the first time.

Daniel Donald argued the trial court shouldn’t have denied his request for a competency evaluation prior to his probation revocation hearing. Donald is a diabetic and had suffered a stroke, which left him with memory loss and speech, reading, and writing impairments. He was serving part of a home detention sentence following his guilty plea to dealing in methamphetamine.

A surveillance officer who came to his home for a urine sample saw Donald acting strangely in the yard, where he urinated in his underwear for the sample. The officer discovered Donald had a rubber glove in his underwear. When confronted about it, Donald took off, ran around the home, grabbed a shotgun, and ran into the woods by his home. When he was coaxed out of the woods, Donald admitted to taking methamphetamine.

Donald’s attorney requested a competency evaluation based on Indiana Code Section 35-36-3-1(a) because he didn’t think Donald could understand and help in the revocation proceedings.

The trial court ruled Donald did not have standing to ask for a competency evaluation under that statute because his request did not deal with competency to stand trial, and it also found that the request was untimely. His probation was revoked and Donald was ordered to serve his sentence in the Department of Correction.

In Daniel A. Donald v. State of Indiana, No. 23A04-0912-CR-685, the appellate court agreed Donald didn’t have a statutory right to a competency hearing because he wasn’t standing trial, but the Due Process Clause requires that a defendant be competent when participating in a probation-revocation hearing.

The judges looked to other jurisdictions, including appeals courts in Florida and Ohio, and adopted those cases’ reasoning on why defendants in Donald’s situation are entitled to a competency hearing. Probation revocation hearings are similar to criminal proceedings in that the defendant’s liberty is at stake and the defendant’s ability to help in the hearing may determine the outcome.

“Without competency, the minimal due process rights guaranteed to probationers at probation revocation hearings would be rendered useless,” wrote Judge Terry Crone.

Since the trial court denied Donald’s request based on its belief it didn’t have standing, the issue of whether or not reasonable grounds existed to order a competency evaluation wasn’t addressed. The issue was remanded for the trial court to address.  


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  2. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  3. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  4. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues