People v. Lindsey, 2018 COA 96

Background

Defendant William Lindsey was convicted by a jury of eight counts of securities fraud and four counts of theft for soliciting about $3 million from investors for a nonexistent bioluminescent lighting technology and purported contracts.
On the eve of trial Lindsey’s counsel filed a competency motion alleging Lindsey was delusional, uncooperative, and unable to assist in his defense; the motion cited statutory competency standards.
The trial court made a preliminary finding of competency, dismissed counsel’s motion as not falling under the competency statute, and refused to order the statutorily required competency evaluation or to accept counsel’s timely objection under § 16-8.5-103.
Counsel renewed the motion during trial but the court again denied relief; Lindsey proceeded to trial, was convicted, and sentenced to 24 years’ imprisonment.
On appeal the court of appeals held the trial court misapplied the statutory competency procedure and abused its discretion by refusing to order an evaluation despite a facially valid motion and timely objection.
The court vacated the judgment and remanded for the trial court to determine whether a meaningful retrospective competency hearing is feasible; if feasible, hold it and (1) reinstate convictions if competency is found, or (2) order a new trial (and require restoration before retrial) if incompetency is found; if infeasible, order a new trial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court erred in refusing to order a competency evaluation after counsel’s motion	The court has discretion and the motion was untimely/strategic; no “reason to believe” threshold required of judge	Counsel’s facially valid motion raised competency under § 16-8.5-102(2)(b); a timely objection to a preliminary finding required an evaluation under § 16-8.5-103(2)	Trial court misapplied statute and abused discretion; evaluation should have been ordered
Proper remedy for statutory failure to follow competency procedures	No constitutional error mandating automatic reversal; remand need not require immediate new trial	Violation of statutory and due-process protections requiring vacatur and further proceedings	Vacated judgment and remanded, but the court prescribes a threshold retrospective-feasibility inquiry rather than automatic retrial
Whether a retrospective competency hearing is appropriate and standard for feasibility	Not argued as a distinct defense point on appeal	Retroactive hearings are disfavored but permissible if a meaningful retrospective evaluation can be conducted using factors such as time lapse, contemporaneous records, trial statements, and available witnesses	Remand for trial court to decide whether a meaningful retrospective competency hearing is feasible using four specified factors; consequences depend on its findings
Jury instruction unanimity (count 6)	N/A (People argued instructions adequate)	Instruction failed to ensure jury unanimity across three distinct transactions in count 6	Instruction on count 6 was improper; if convictions reinstated after competency review, conviction on count 6 must be vacated unless instructions are corrected

Key Cases Cited

Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (U.S. 1966) (due-process obligation to address potential incompetency)
Clayton v. Gibson, 199 F.3d 1162 (10th Cir. 1999) (retrospective competency hearings permissible if meaningful)
McGregor v. Gibson, 248 F.3d 946 (10th Cir. 2001) (discussing disfavored but permissible retrospective competency hearings)
United States v. Bergman, 599 F.3d 1142 (10th Cir. 2010) (remedy guidance allowing retrospective competency determinations)
Odle v. Woodford, 238 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. 2001) (retrospective competency hearings can cure omission when record permits)
People v. Thomas, 195 P.3d 1162 (Colo. App. 2008) (one appellate division not bound by another division’s decision on remedy)
State v. Bostwick, 988 P.2d 765 (Mont. 1999) (framework for retrospective competency hearing and consequences)
People v. Ary, 246 P.3d 322 (Cal. 2011) (discussing retrospective competency hearings)
People v. Corichi, 18 P.3d 807 (Colo. App. 2000) (factors for assessing feasibility of retrospective competency hearings)
People v. Greer, 262 P.3d 920 (Colo. App. 2011) (unanimity instruction and election rules when multiple acts could constitute offense)