Appeals court hears challenge to trial court's competency finding

An appellate panel presided over by Judge Bill A. Bowman heard oral argument on whether a trial court erred in finding a defendant competent before proceeding to trial in absentia. Defense counsel Matt Follinsby of the Washington Appellate Project asked the court to reverse, saying the trial judge failed to ensure the defendant could assist counsel and understand the nature of the proceedings.

Follinsby told the court the record contains prior evaluators’ findings of agitation, paranoia, disjointed communication and fixation on irrelevant matters. He said those features escalated as the case proceeded, culminating in the defendant being tried in absentia "without ever having had a substantive conversation about his case with his attorney," and argued the trial court made no contemporaneous, on-the-record inquiry sufficient to discharge its independent duty to assure competency.

The state, represented by Hazel Petrino, urged the panel to affirm. Petrino said as of the July 19 order there was "no acute psychosis whatsoever" and no mental-health symptoms that would impair competency, citing an unrebutted expert opinion that the defendant’s refusal to engage was volitional. She emphasized that the written order credited the reports of Dr. DiTullio and Dr. McCormick and argued that, in close cases, appellate courts defer to the trial court’s advantage in observing counsel and witnesses.

The exchange also touched on procedural defenses. The state highlighted case-law distinctions (including Hedrick and Deloro as cited in the briefs) and argued procedural bars might preclude relief; defense counsel countered that later events and colloquies as trial approached created new, material doubt that required further inquiry.

In rebuttal, Follinsby focused on two colloquies and the defendant’s apparent inability to grasp a fundamental right: he said the defendant repeatedly insisted he would not testify because he feared being forced to do so, and that this persisted even after evaluators reported competency—facts that, the defense argued, should have prompted the trial court to inquire further before allowing the case to proceed.

The panel concluded oral argument after counsel finished their time. The court did not issue a ruling from the bench at the hearing.