State v. Mark White, 339 P.3d 1243

On Feb 16, 2011 Mark White assaulted Mark Ward, cut his face, and made delusional/violent statements; police arrested White and he was charged with assault with a weapon.
White exhibited acute mental illness; was transferred to Hope House then involuntarily civilly committed to Montana State Hospital and medicated.
District Court ordered a fitness evaluation; hospital initially found White unfit (schizoaffective disorder) and extended commitment; later report (Oct 2011) found White restored to fitness.
White was absent from an August 1, 2011 district review where the court, relying on an uncontested hospital report, found him unfit and continued commitment; he was present at later proceedings and found fit before trial.
No complete statutory initial-appearance advisement (§ 46-7-102, MCA) was given at the February 28, 2011 proceeding; defense counsel and judge agreed White was not in condition to receive advisements.
After waiving a jury, White was tried by bench and convicted; sentenced to commitment under § 46-14-312(2), MCA. White appealed arguing (1) his exclusion from the fitness determination hearing violated his right to be present, and (2) the court failed to complete the initial-appearance advisement.

Issue	White's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether court erred by determining fitness at a hearing where White was absent	Exclusion from fitness hearing denied his right to be present at a critical stage and prejudiced his defense	Court may rely on an uncontested hospital report under § 46-14-221(1), MCA; no prejudice occurred	No reversible error: assuming the hearing was a critical stage, White suffered no prejudice because findings were uncontested and he was declared fit before trial
Whether court erred by failing to complete initial-appearance advisements (§ 46-7-102, MCA)	Failure to provide statutorily mandated advisals (charges, right to counsel, right to remain silent, etc.) violated due process; requests plain-error review	Defense counsel acquiesced at the initial hearing; White had counsel and received the practical realization of rights, so no prejudice	Court declines plain-error relief: although advisals were not given once White regained fitness, White was not prejudiced (had counsel, probable-cause review, bail set); conviction affirmed

Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (due process prohibits prosecution of incompetent defendants)
Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730 (defendant has right to be present at critical stages)
Sturgis v. Goldsmith, 796 F.2d 1103 (9th Cir.) (absence from competency hearing can be harmless if defendant competent at trial)
State v. Gatlin, 353 Mont. 163, 219 P.3d 874 (Mont. 2009) (remedy for failures in initial appearance advisals)
State v. Reim, 374 Mont. 487, 323 P.3d 880 (Mont. 2014) (preservation of error and plain-error doctrine)