State v. Murray, 302 Kan. 478

In 1983 Randall A. Murray was charged with felony murder and aggravated robbery; the district court ordered a competency evaluation (Dr. William Reese) but the record contained no statutorily required competency hearing and Murray was tried and convicted.
Murray received life for murder and an additional consecutive sentence; after unsuccessful appeals he filed a 2009 motion to correct an illegal sentence arguing lack of jurisdiction because no competency hearing occurred.
This court’s earlier opinion (State v. Murray, 293 Kan. 1051 (2012)) remanded for factual development on whether the competency hearing actually occurred and indicated that if it had not, relief might be required.
On remand the district court held an evidentiary hearing (testimony from Dr. Reese, prosecutor, defense counsel, and Murray), found no contemporaneous competency hearing in the record, but concluded a retrospective competency hearing was feasible and that Murray was competent in 1983.
Murray appealed, arguing the district court exceeded the supreme court’s mandate and that a retrospective competency hearing was not feasible; the Supreme Court of Kansas affirmed the district court.

Issue	Murray's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the district court exceeded the Murray I mandate by conducting a feasibility inquiry and retrospective hearing	Murray: Murray I required reversal if no competency hearing occurred; district court exceeded the mandate by holding feasibility and retrospective proceedings	State: Murray I incorporated Davis; district court may determine feasibility and, if feasible, hold retrospective hearing	Court: District court did not exceed the mandate; Davis applies and retrospective process was authorized
Whether a meaningful retrospective competency hearing was feasible	Murray: Thirty years elapsed; contemporaneous evidence and witnesses are insufficient to support a meaningful retrospective hearing	State: Contemporaneous medical report, trial transcript, and witness testimony allow a meaningful retrospective determination	Court: Feasibility upheld—despite long delay, contemporaneous exam, trial statements, and witness testimony made a retrospective hearing feasible
Whether the State met its burden to prove an original competency hearing occurred	Murray: No competency hearing on record; jurisdictional defect	State: Circumstantial evidence could support that a hearing occurred	Court: State did not prove an original competency hearing occurred; district court’s negative finding was not an abuse of discretion

State v. Murray, 293 Kan. 1051 (Kan. 2012) (remanded for determination whether competency hearing occurred and outlined burden shifting)
State v. Davis, 281 Kan. 169 (Kan. 2006) (approved retrospective competency hearings when feasible)
McGregor v. Gibson, 248 F.3d 946 (10th Cir. 2001) (factors to determine feasibility of retrospective competency hearings)
Clayton v. Gibson, 199 F.3d 1162 (10th Cir. 1999) (contemporaneous but brief competency evaluation can be meaningful)
Maxwell v. Roe, 606 F.3d 561 (9th Cir. 2010) (value of contemporaneous evidence for retrospective competency analysis)
State v. Mosher, 299 Kan. 1 (Kan. 2014) (abuse of discretion standards cited for reviewing district court decisions)