Whether a district court must conduct a competency hearing sua sponte based on the record evidence

QUESTION PRESENTED This petition presents the legal question in terms of what is minimally required to trigger a trial court’s obligation to conduct a competency hearing sua sponte — when must a district court, as a matter of law, conduct a competency hearing sua sponte (even if, for example, the court has previously rendered a finding of competency)? In other words, what record evidence — quality, quantity, degree, and substance -is enough and legally sufficient to invoke a trial court’s obligation to hold a competency hearing, and subsequent competency hearings if necessary, sua sponte? The test for determining competence to stand trial (or to plead guilty) is whether a defendant has the sufficient present ability to consult with his or her lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and whether the defendant has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him or her. Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 402 (1960) (per curiam). Generally, then, a district court must conduct a competency hearing sua sponte when information known to the trial judge at the time of the trial or plea hearing is sufficient to raise a bona fide doubt regarding the defendant’s competence. Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 385 (1966); see also, e.g., McNair v. Dugger, 866 F.2d 399, 401 (11 Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 834 (1989). To satisfy this procedural requirement, once a court learns or is presented with information that raises a bona i fide doubt about a defendant’s competence, the presiding judge must pursue and apply adequate safeguards to ascertain and determine whether the defendant is competent to move forward in the proceedings. Pate, 383 U.S. at 378 This case offers the Court an appropriate opportunity to define what is meant by “sufficient information” such that there exists “a bona fide doubt” about a defendant’s competency. As framed by the record-on-appeal in this cause, then, the specific question asked herein is whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversibly erred when it affirmed and upheld the district court’s decision foregoing a competency hearing despite distinct and articulable record-evidence establishing a substantive if not organic and holistic doubt, question, and concern about Petitioner’s competence to proceed. ii