32 A.3d 448
Me.2011Background
- Haraden was convicted of murder in 2006 and sentenced to 52 years in jail; this direct appeal was previously affirmed.
- In February 2008 Haraden initiated timely post-conviction proceedings alleging ineffective assistance of counsel; the court ordered a mental examination to assess competence to proceed.
- A State forensic psychologist opined Haraden was not psychotic but unable to assist his attorney in the post-conviction process.
- The trial court found Haraden incompetent to proceed with his post-conviction petition and bifurcated the claims, remanding him to DOC custody pending competence restoration.
- The Maine Supreme Judicial Court granted a certificate of probable cause and held an interlocutory appeal would proceed under collateral order, determining competence may be addressed in post-conviction review and directing removal of certain disposition aspects; the court also vacated part of the judgment and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
- The court clarified that Haraden remains in DOC custody and that a renewed inquiry may occur if he regains competence, including a potential reopening of post-conviction grounds beyond normal time constraints.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Haraden has a right to competence in post-conviction review. | Haraden argues post-conviction competence is required. | Respondent contends no such right exists in statute and that post-conviction review proceeds without this competence. | Yes; right to post-conviction competence implied. |
| Whether competence may be determined in post-conviction proceedings. | Competence should be determined within post-conviction proceedings. | Competence is not addressed by post-conviction statutes. | Competence may be determined in post-conviction proceedings. |
| Whether the record supports a finding of incompetence. | Record shows inability to assist counsel. Haraden is incompetent. | Record insufficient or not compelling for incompetence finding. | Record supports incompetence. |
| Whether remanding Haraden to DOC rather than DHHS was proper. | DHHS custody would better provide treatment. | DOC custody is appropriate pending competence. | Remand to DOC proper; no basis to remand to DHHS. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960) (defines competency standard for legal proceedings)
- Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (1975) (requires understanding and rational cooperation with counsel)
- Thursby v. State, 223 A.2d 61 (Me.1966) (competence to stand trial essential for due process)
- State v. Lewis, 584 A.2d 622 (Me.1990) (definition of competent defendant and communication with counsel)
- Rohan ex rel. Gates v. Woodford, 334 F.3d 803 (9th Cir.2003) (post-conviction competence implications in collateral review)