Russell E. Crawford v. State, A20A0187

Russell Crawford was tried and convicted by a jury of aggravated battery, rape, and aggravated sodomy arising from an April 25, 2013 attack in which the victim was found severely injured and male DNA in her rectum matched Crawford.
The trial court initially entered an October 27, 2014 order finding Crawford incapable of meaningfully participating in his defense and committed him to the Department of Behavioral Health & Developmental Disabilities (DBHDD) for a 90‑day competency evaluation.
DBHDD’s report, noting Crawford’s uncooperativeness and possible malingering, concluded he was competent to stand trial; the State proceeded to trial without a subsequent bench competency hearing under OCGA § 17‑7‑130(d).
Crawford did not file a special plea of incompetence, but defense counsel informed the court that Crawford had a long history of psychotic episodes and had difficulty communicating in full sentences with counsel.
On appeal Crawford argued the trial court erred by failing to hold the § 17‑7‑130(d) competency hearing and by failing to inquire sua sponte into his competency; the Court of Appeals vacated the judgment and remanded for the required competency hearing, without ordering a new guilt‑innocence trial at this time.

Issue	Crawford's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by failing to hold a bench hearing under OCGA § 17‑7‑130(d) after DBHDD found Crawford competent	DBHDD’s competency finding did not eliminate the court’s duty to hold a bench competency hearing under § 17‑7‑130(d); the court must conduct that hearing within 45 days of receiving the evaluation	The DBHDD evaluation resolved competency and no further bench hearing was required to proceed to trial	Court: Error — after committing Crawford and ordering DBHDD evaluation, the court was required to follow § 17‑7‑130(d) and hold the bench competency hearing; remanded for that hearing
Whether Crawford waived competency challenge by not filing a special plea of incompetence	Failure to file a special plea does not eliminate the trial court’s duty to hold an adequate competency hearing when competency is raised	Crawford’s failure to file a special plea waived his right to a special jury on competency	Court: State’s waiver argument fails; even absent a special plea, the trial court must hold an adequate competency hearing when competency questions are raised

Matlock v. State, 302 Ga. App. 173 (2010) (standard for viewing evidence on appeal after conviction)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (sufficiency of the evidence standard)
Wadley v. State, 295 Ga. App. 556 (2009) (trial court must hold an adequate competency hearing when competency is raised even if no special plea is filed)
Beach v. State, 351 Ga. App. 237 (2019) (statutory competency procedures under OCGA § 17‑7‑130 are mandatory once triggered)
Baker v. State, 250 Ga. 187 (1982) (procedural guidance on competency proceedings)
McGourik v. State, 303 Ga. 881 (2018) (addressing constitutionality of a related subsection of § 17‑7‑130)