State v. Paulino, 127 Conn. App. 51

Defendant José Paulino, a non-U.S. resident with no prior criminal record, was tried in a bench trial for possession of narcotics with intent to sell and within 1500 feet of a public school.
February 12–13, 2008: Hardy, a heroin possessor cooperating with police, arranged to obtain 500 grams from a supplier; Hardy identified defendant as his source and described a green Ford Explorer.
Police observed a green Ford Explorer matching the description near Hardy’s Hartford home; defendant was arrested and five 100-gram heroin blocks were found in a shopping bag inside the car.
Defendant, who spoke through a Spanish interpreter, waived his right to a jury trial and elected to be tried by the court; canvass showed his understanding and choice were made with varying degrees of English comprehension.
During trial, defense counsel stated no competency motion would be filed; defendant testified denying knowledge of possession and claiming a police conspiracy; court convicted him on both counts and sentenced him to six years in prison (consecutive).
Defendant did not raise the competency issue at trial; he later sought relief under Golding for an unpreserved constitutional error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by not ordering a sua sponte competency hearing	State: no substantial evidence of incompetence; court observed defendant and defense; no duty to sua sponte order an evaluation	Paulino argues that substantial evidence of mental impairment required a competency inquiry and sua sponte ordering a hearing	No abuse of discretion; no requirement to order competency hearing; Golding claim failed

State v. Connor, 292 Conn. 483 (2009) (limits for when trial court must consider competency evidence)
State v. DesLaurier, 230 Conn. 572 (1994) (trial court's deference to its own observations in competency context)
State v. Johnson, 253 Conn. 1 (2000) (Dusky standard and ongoing duty to monitor competence)
State v. Gonzalez, 205 Conn. 673 (1987) (competency requires understanding and ability to assist defense)
State v. Williams, 65 Conn. App. 59 (2001) (defendant's defense strategy concerns do not equal incompetence)
United States v. Arenburg, 605 F.3d 164 (2d Cir. 2010) (pro se defendant's competency duty to revisit sua sponte when reasonable cause)
United States v. Auen, 846 F.2d 872 (2d Cir. 1988) (extreme bizarre behavior required for competency inquiry malpractice)