State v. Wolf, 319 P.3d 757

Wolf stood trial for two counts of terroristic threats and two counts of stalking; he shot himself between trial days and did not appear for the second day, but the trial proceeded in his absence.
Defense counsel raised a competency concern and sought a full competency hearing after the self-inflicted gunshot wound and Wolf’s mental health history.
The court denied a continuance and proceeded with trial in absentia, citing a pattern of delay tactics and not explaining the absence to the jury.
A later competency petition, aided by prior filings and the attorney’s observations, contended long-term bipolar history and a suicide attempt questioned Wolf’s present competence.
Convictions were entered on the second day; Wolf challenged competency not being fully explored, the in-absentia trial, and the sentencing under a non-duplicative statute; the court ultimately vacated the convictions and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the trial court err by not ordering a full competency hearing?	Wolf asserts bona fide doubt due to mental illness and self-harm.	State contends limited hearing sufficed to determine sufficiency of petition.	Yes; there was a bona fide doubt requiring a full competency hearing.
Was proceeding to trial in Wolf’s absence properly scrutinized as voluntary absence?	Wolf’s absence followed a suicide attempt and mental health concerns.	Court found absence routine and unrelated to competency.	Issue moot on appeal; not necessary to resolve for remand.
Was Shondel applicable to limit sentencing because two statutes were not wholly duplicative?	Shondel requires lesser punishment when statutes are duplicative.	Two statutes contain different elements (cohabitation), not wholly duplicative.	Sentencing under domestic violence stalking did not violate Shondel.

Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (U.S. 1975) (due process requires inquiry when competency is in doubt; retrospective determination barred)
Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (U.S. 1960) (standard for competency to stand trial (rational understanding and ability to consult counsel))
Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (U.S. 1966) (trial cannot proceed if defendant is incompetent; raise competency concerns promptly)
State v. Holland, 921 P.2d 430 (Utah 1996) (retrospective competency determinations discouraged; require present competency evaluation)
State v. Arguelles, 63 P.3d 731 (Utah 2003) (recognizes authority to raise competency issues; supports procedures for competency petitions)