State Of Washington, V Michael Stephen Bougard, 49099-4

Defendant Michael Bougard was charged with second-degree assault and initially refused to participate in a jail competency exam; he was later ordered to Western State Hospital (WSH) for evaluation and restoration.
WSH staff initially opined Bougard lacked capacity; after inpatient evaluation and limited engagement (refusing meds and some interviews), evaluators later concluded he had no symptoms impairing competency and recommended return to court.
Trial court held a competency hearing and found Bougard competent to stand trial; the case proceeded to jury trial where Bougard frequently refused to communicate, wore jail clothes, and declined to testify.
Defense counsel told the court Bougard could and had voiced objections at times but was choosing not to participate; counsel did not move for a midtrial competency reevaluation.
Jury convicted Bougard of second-degree assault; Bougard appealed arguing (1) the trial court should have sua sponte ordered a competency reevaluation during trial and (2) trial counsel was ineffective for not moving for one.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by failing to sua sponte order a competency reevaluation during trial	Bougard: his courtroom silence, wearing jail clothes, and nonresponsive behavior during key inquiries should have alerted the court to order reevaluation	State: court reasonably relied on prior WSH evaluations and defense counsel's observation that Bougard was capable but uncooperative; no new information showed changed competency	No abuse of discretion — prior competency finding and evaluator conclusions justified not ordering reevaluation
Whether defense counsel was ineffective for failing to move for a competency reevaluation	Bougard: counsel should have moved midtrial given his behavior, which prejudiced his defense	State: counsel had no reason to believe Bougard’s competency had changed after the competency finding; no deficient performance or prejudice shown	Ineffective-assistance claim fails — no deficient performance or reasonable probability of different outcome

Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (defendant must be competent to be tried and sentenced)
State v. Ortiz, 119 Wn.2d 294 (trial court need not revisit competency absent new information indicating change)
State v. Heddrick, 166 Wn.2d 898 (standard of review for ordering competency exam is abuse of discretion)
State v. Dodd, 70 Wn.2d 513 (trial judge may base competency determination on many observed factors)
State v. Lord, 117 Wn.2d 829 (weight to give attorney’s opinion on competency)
State v. Reichenbach, 153 Wn.2d 126 (two-part ineffective assistance test)
State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322 (prejudice standard for ineffective assistance)