Gladu v. State
| Decision Date | 03 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | CR-14-3454 |
| Parties | NICHOLAS GLADU, Petitioner, v. STATE OF MAINE, Respondent |
| Court | Maine Superior Court |
The court held a status conference on the record today in the above-captioned postconviction review case with Attorneys Neale Duffett and Jen Cohen representing petitioner Nicholas Gladu, Jennifer Ackerman representing the State, and Mr Gladu observing via Zoom link from the prison.[1]
It was agreed that another conference would need to be held in late February or early March once it is determined whether the undersigned will return as an ARJ and will continue to be assigned to this case and in order to resolve several issues before a hearing can be scheduled.
In the meantime counsel for petitioner stated that they anticipate filing a motion to amend the petition to assert an additional ground. Unless further extended by the court, that motion shall be filed by February 28, 2022.[2]
Counsel for petitioner also advised the court that pending motions filed by Mr. Gladu in the two cases in which he is representing himself with standby counsel (Cumberland UCD docket 18-156 and a more recent case pending in Knox County) may be pertinent to this case as well.
Unless further extended by the court, counsel for petitioner shall file by February 28, 2022 a { pleading setting forth any pending motions in the two other cases that petitioner asserts also apply to this case. The court can without undue difficulty obtain copies of motions in CR-18-156 but petitioner's pleading should attach any pertinent motions from the Knox County case.
In the meantime, Mr, Gladu has again raised the question of his competency to proceed and contests the conclusions in the forensic report dated December 23, 2021. On that issue, if petitioner seeks a competency hearing, such a hearing can be scheduled. The scheduling may depend on petitioner's efforts to obtain an independent evaluation, which the court understands he is seeking.
In connection with post-conviction review, the issue of competency appears to be governed by the Law Court's decision in Haraden v. State, 2011 ME 113, 32 A.3d 448, which counsel should be prepared to address at the next scheduled conference.
---------
[1] It is the court's understanding that he may be in the IMHU.
[2] Setting the deadline as February 28 takes into account the difficulty currently experienced by counsel in...
To continue reading
Request your trial