State v. Tyler Ray Carter, 155 Idaho 170

Defendant Tyler Ray Carter, incarcerated in IDOC mental health tier, head-butted Officer Johnson during restraint, causing permanent injury; charged with aggravated battery on a correctional officer with a potential persistent-violator enhancement.
Court ordered a competency evaluation under I.C. § 18-211; Dr. Sombke found Carter competent though symptomatic; Carter pleaded guilty in exchange for dismissal of the enhancement.
The court ordered a presentence investigation (PSI); the PSI included prior competency evaluations (2005, possibly 2010) but apparently did not include IDOC psychiatric records; defense requested psychiatric records be obtained and Carter consented to release.
Carter did not request a psychological evaluation under I.C. § 19-2522 at sentencing and did not object when the PSI included competency evaluations; both parties discussed Carter’s mental health at sentencing.
On appeal Carter initially argued (1) the use of competency evaluations in the PSI violated the Fifth Amendment and I.C. § 18-215, and (2) the court erred by failing to sua sponte order a pre-sentencing psychological evaluation under I.C. § 19-2522. He later withdrew the Fifth Amendment claim.
The Court of Appeals vacated the sentence for failure to order the § 19-2522 evaluation under a manifest-disregard standard; the Idaho Supreme Court granted review and affirmed the district court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Carter)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether use of competency evaluations in the PSI violated the Fifth Amendment / I.C. § 18-215	Such evaluations were produced for competency only and their inclusion in PSI and use at sentencing violated privilege and statutory limits	State argued claim lacked merit; Carter later withdrew this claim	Withdrawn by Carter at oral argument; not decided on merits
Whether failure to sua sponte order a pre-sentencing psychological evaluation under I.C. § 19-2522 is reviewable on appeal without contemporaneous objection; if so, whether error occurred	Court had mandatory duty under § 19-2522 when mental health is a significant sentencing factor; failure to order is reviewable despite no objection (Court of Appeals applied manifest-disregard standard)	The Perry fundamental-error standard governs all unobjected-to errors in criminal proceedings; statutory violations alone do not meet Perry’s constitutional threshold	Idaho Supreme Court held Perry applies to sentencing-phase errors; because Carter’s claim was statutory (not constitutional), he failed Perry’s first prong and appellate review was barred; judgment and sentence affirmed

State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209 (2010) (establishes three-prong fundamental-error test for unobjected-to claims in criminal cases)
State v. Carson, 151 Idaho 713 (2011) (applied Perry to unobjected-to claims in sentencing proceedings)
State v. Gomez, 153 Idaho 253 (2012) (applied Perry to post-plea sentencing error; unobjected-to claims require showing fundamental error)
State v. Durham, 146 Idaho 364 (2008) (Court of Appeals had applied manifest-disregard standard to sentencing errors; discussed by parties)
State v. Pepcorn, 152 Idaho 678 (2012) (Supreme Court reviews Court of Appeals decisions on petition for review as if appeal were direct)