Derek Hutchinson v. State of Indiana
82 N.E.3d 305
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 2006 Derek Hutchison pled guilty but mentally ill to Class B felony rape; trial court sentenced him to 20 years with 15 years executed and 5 years suspended to probation.
- Hutchison has a long documented history of psychiatric treatment; prior competency evaluations in 2006 found him competent to stand trial.
- Hutchison was released from DOC and placed on probation in October 2016.
- In November 2016 the State filed a petition alleging probation violations, including unlawful entry by a serious sex offender for being on school property on multiple occasions.
- An evidentiary probation-revocation hearing was held January 10, 2017; Hutchison (represented by counsel) did not request a competency evaluation at any time before or during the hearing.
- The trial court found Hutchison violated probation, concluded his mental issues did not render him unable to understand his actions, revoked probation, and ordered service of the full 5-year suspended term. Hutchison appealed, arguing fundamental error for failure to hold a competency hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court committed fundamental error by not ordering a competency evaluation before probation revocation | State: no error; trial court properly exercised discretion and observed defendant's demeanor | Hutchison: mental illness required a competency evaluation; failure deprived him of due process | Court: No fundamental error — defendant and counsel never requested evaluation; court’s observation supported competency finding |
| Whether reasonable grounds for a competency hearing existed given Hutchison's psychiatric history | State: prior competency findings and no evidence of deterioration; not all mental illness equals incompetence | Hutchison: psychiatric history and behavior at hearing (aliases, confusion) indicated need for evaluation | Court: Prior 2006 competency findings and hearing demeanor supplied adequate basis to deny evaluation; no showing of substantial deterioration |
Key Cases Cited
- Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184 (Ind. 2007) (probation is discretionary and revocation review uses abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Donald v. State, 930 N.E.2d 76 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (defendant has due-process right to competency evaluation before probation revocation when reasonable grounds exist)
- Mathews v. State, 849 N.E.2d 578 (Ind. 2006) (sets narrow standard for fundamental-error review)
- Brown v. State, 929 N.E.2d 204 (Ind. 2010) (fundamental-error exception available only in egregious circumstances)
- Manuel v. State, 535 N.E.2d 1159 (Ind. 1989) (trial court observations of defendant demeanor may support finding that competency evaluation is unnecessary)
- Anderson v. State, 699 N.E.2d 257 (Ind. 1998) (not all mental conditions relieve criminal responsibility; need present inability to understand/assist to show incompetence)