This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Defendant was on probation when the State moved to revoke it, citing his indictment and subsequent convictions for serious offenses, including first-degree murder, battery on a peace officer, and armed robbery. At the probation revocation hearing, the Defendant requested a continuance, arguing that his recent heart attack and prior competency concerns rendered him unable to participate in the proceedings.
Procedural History
- District Court, April 20, 2009: Defendant was convicted of battery on a peace officer by a jury.
- District Court, June 11, 2009: Defendant was convicted of three counts of armed robbery.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court abused its discretion by denying a continuance to assess his competency, citing his recent heart attack, prior competency issues, and the intention to raise an insanity defense in a related case.
- State-Appellee: Contended that the Defendant had stipulated to competency in prior cases, was recently tried and convicted, and failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate his claim of incompetency.
Legal Issues
- Did the district court abuse its discretion by denying the Defendant’s request for a continuance to evaluate his competency during the probation revocation proceeding?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision to deny the continuance, uphold the revocation of probation, and impose the Defendant’s sentence.
Reasons
Per Cynthia A. Fry, Chief Judge (Wechsler and Garcia JJ. concurring):
The Court held that the Defendant failed to meet his burden of proving incompetency by a preponderance of the evidence. The district court acted within its discretion in finding no reasonable doubt about the Defendant’s competency to participate in the probation revocation proceeding. The Court emphasized that the Defendant had recently been deemed competent to stand trial and convicted in related cases. Additionally, the Defendant did not provide affidavits or other evidence to substantiate his claim of incompetency. The Court concluded that the district court’s actions did not violate the Defendant’s due process rights.