State v. Faron Raymond Hawkins, 305 P.3d 513

Hawkins was convicted in January 2008 of two counts of robbery by a jury in Idaho.
On direct appeal, the Idaho Court of Appeals vacated the conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding the district court erred by not ordering a competency evaluation and questioning Hawkins’s competence.
The Court of Appeals stated it was not possible to retroactively determine Hawkins’s competency at the time of trial and that Hawkins could be retried if found competent.
On remand, the district court ordered a competency evaluation; experts found Hawkins competent to stand trial.
The district court determined Hawkins was presently competent and had been at the time of trial, but concluded law of the case required retry; this interlocutory appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether law of the case bars retroactive competency	State contends law of the case forbids retroactive determination	Hawkins contends law of the case allows retroactive evaluation and may raise due process concerns	Law of the case does not bar retroactive competency
Whether the State waived the retroactive competency challenge	State failed to present retroactive competency challenge previously and waived	State did not waive; issue arises under law-of-the-case and Rule 38	Not waived; proper to address retroactive competency issue
Whether Idaho Appellate Rule 38 requires retrial as the sole remedy	Rule 38 directs compliance with the opinion’s directive to retry	Rule 38 is not controlling beyond law-of-the-case directive; no additional remedy analysis required	Rule 38 does not compel retrial as the sole outcome here

State v. Hawkins, 148 Idaho 774 (Ct. App. 2009) (retroactive competency determination deemed not possible by the Court of Appeals)
Stuart v. State, IV, 136 Idaho 490 (2001) (law-of-the-case discussion; discretion to apply remedies on remand)
Taylor v. Maile, 201 P.3d 1282 (2009) (law of the case definition and application)
Petersen v. State, 393 P.2d 585 (1964) (dicta versus controlling language; law-of-the-case principles)
Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (1975) (due process and retrospective evaluation concepts)