State v. Smith
855 N.W.2d 422
Wis. Ct. App.2014Background
- Smith was convicted by jury of one count of second‑degree sexual assault and sentenced to 40 years (25 initial confinement, 15 ES) in 2009.
- At sentencing, Smith delivered a rambling, incoherent allocution touching on numerous unrelated matters.
- Postconviction counsel filed a competency motion in 2010; court ordered a competency evaluation by Dr. Collins, who found incompetence with potential restoration with treatment.
- Dr. Collins testified at the evidentiary hearing that Smith was actively symptomatic and incompetent prior to trial and at sentencing.
- Dr. Pankiewicz, who reviewed records and interviewed Smith, also concluded substantial incompetence persisted and that restoration was unlikely.
- The postconviction court denied relief, relying on defense counsel and trial judge observations and discounting contemporaneous expert opinions.
- On appeal, the court held there was reason to doubt Smith’s competence at trial and sentencing, vacated the conviction, and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was substantive doubt about Smith’s competence at trial and sentencing | Smith argues he was incompetent at trial and sentencing | Court relied on contemporaneous observers; experts were not interviewing at that time | Yes; record shows reason to doubt competence; remand for new trial |
| Whether defense counsel was ineffective for not raising competency | Smith asserts ineffective assistance for not challenging competence earlier | Trial court and counsel did not raise concerns | Not addressed; decision remands on substantive issue |
| Whether procedural competency issues necessitate reversal | Competency to assist in postconviction proceedings was lacking | Proceedings followed postconviction procedures | Remand on substantive issue; procedural issue deemed moot after reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (U.S. 1960) (establishes basic two-prong competency test)
- Garfoot v. State, 207 Wis. 2d 214 (Wis. 1997) (competence determined by individualized, fact-specific assessment)
- Byrge v. State, 237 Wis. 2d 197 (Wis. 2000) (deference to trial court's demeanor observations when determining competence not absolute)
- Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348 (U.S. 1996) (due process prohibits trial of an incompetent defendant)
- Johnson v. State, 133 Wis. 2d 207 (Wis. 1986) (retroactive competency determinations permitted in some cases)
- Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (U.S. 1966) (retroactive competency determinations allowed with challenges to past competence)