Dusky v. United States

holding that the proper test of competency to assist in one’s defense is whether the defendant has “sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding” | holding that a person is competent to stand trial if he understands the proceedings and is able to assist counsel in his defense | concluding no retrospective competency determination could be held "[i]n view of the doubts and ambiguities regarding the legal significance of the psychiatric testimony" | noting that the Supreme Court has indicated that the standard above applies to “federal habeas review of state proceedings” | holding there was not enough evidence in record to support finding of competency, noting doubt and ambiguity regarding legal significance of psychiatric testimony in record | holding petitioner had an intellectual understanding of the charges against him but his impaired sense of reality substantially undermined his judgment and prevented him from cooperating rationally with his lawyer | stating that the test for competency is “whether [the defendant] has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding—and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him” | stating that the test for competency is “whether [the defendant] has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding—and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him” | vacating murder conviction where interpreter provided defendant with summaries rather than verbatim account of the proceedings | noting “difficulties of retrospectively determining the petitioner’s competency as of more than a year ago” | noting "difficulties of retrospectively determining the petitioner's competency as of more than a year ago" | holding the test to determine competency is whether the defendant has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him. | holding the test to determine competency is whether the defendant has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him. | upholding trial court’s decision to order a hearing to determine whether a retrospective competency determination would be feasible | noting that the test for a defendant's competency is "whether [a defendant] has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding-and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him'" | noting that the test for a defendant's competency is "whether [a defendant] has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding — and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him" | establishing definition of incompetence as not being able to understand process or to assist counsel in preparing defense | explaining that test for competence to stand trial is “whether [defendant] has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding—and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him” | finding claim that plea was involuntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel was contradicted by the Truth-in-Sentencing Guilty Plea Form and by defendant’s statements at the plea colloquy | finding inadequate evidence on the record that a defendant was competent to stand trial | explaining, in part, the standard for determining competency to stand trial is "whether [the defendant] has sufficient present ability to consult