Huzzie v. State
| Citation | 236 Ga. App. 192,512 S.E.2d 5 |
| Decision Date | 02 February 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. A98A1968.,A98A1968. |
| Parties | HUZZIE v. The STATE. |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Douglas N. Fox, Atlanta, for appellant.
Peter J. Skandalakis, District Attorney, Brett E. Pinion, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
Derick D. Huzzie appeals from the judgment of conviction entered on jury verdicts finding him guilty of two counts of armed robbery.
The State presented evidence that two victims were robbed at gunpoint at their residence and that the robberies were planned and carried out by Huzzie and two accomplices. The victims were Huzzie's sister and her boyfriend. While Huzzie was visiting the victims, he walked outside the residence, then came back inside pretending to be held at gunpoint by two masked men who were actually his accomplices. Although Huzzie claimed he had no part in the robberies, the State presented testimony from both accomplices—the testimony of one corroborating the testimony of the other—that Huzzie planned and participated in the armed robberies. Ross v. State, 245 Ga. 173, 177, 263 S.E.2d 913 (1980). The evidence was sufficient to show that Huzzie was guilty as a party to the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. Murphy v. State, 212 Ga.App. 153, 154, 442 S.E.2d 2 (1994); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).
The competency issue was raised for the first time after the trial in Huzzie's motion for a new trial. An accused has a constitutional right not to be put on trial while incompetent. Harris v. State, 256 Ga. 350, 351, 349 S.E.2d 374 (1986). "[T]he issue of mental competency to stand trial is the same whether raised before, during or subsequent to trial, and if, in fact, [Huzzie] was not competent at the time of his trial but is now competent to stand trial, a new trial should be granted." Smalls v. State, 153 Ga.App. 254, 256, 265 S.E.2d 83 (1980). The issue is whether at the time of the trial Huzzie was capable of understanding the nature and object of the proceedings against him, whether he rightly comprehended his own condition in reference to such proceedings, and whether he was capable of assisting his attorney in the defense of the charges against him. Crawford v. State, 240 Ga. 321, 326, 240 S.E.2d 824 (1977).
Huzzie's trial attorney testified at the hearing on the motion for a new trial that he was aware that Huzzie had been treated for depression and suicidal and homicidal ideation at a mental hospital between the time of his arrest and the time of the trial. He testified, however, that he was unaware Huzzie had attempted suicide. Trial counsel testified that he spoke to Huzzie about his mental problems prior to trial and determined that Huzzie understood what he was doing. He testified that he discussed the case with Huzzie, that Huzzie understood the charges against him, assisted in the preparation of his defense, and participated in his trial. The transcript of the trial reflects that Huzzie testified in his own defense, spoke candidly about his depression during his testimony, testified as to the details of the robbery while denying that he was a participant, and gave rational answers to questions posed on direct and cross-examination.
In ruling on the motion for a new trial, the trial court entered an order for a hearing on Huzzie's competency and heard evidence from two psychologists who examined Huzzie on July 29, 1997, and February 11, 1998, respectively, to determine if he was competent at the time of the September 12, 1996 trial. The psychologist employed by Huzzie found he was suffering from severe cognitive impairment, would be unable to provide "consistent help" to an attorney, and would have "a lot of difficulty" understanding the consequences of a trial. Based on his examination, he testified that Huzzie was probably incompetent to stand trial in September 1996. The psychologist employed by the State testified that, based on her examination of Huzzie and her review of the transcript of the testimony at the trial, she found no evidence that Huzzie was suffering from any kind of severe mental symptoms at the time of the trial that would have interfered with his ability to understand the nature and object of the legal proceedings, or with his ability to comprehend his own condition in reference to the proceedings, or with his ability to render assistance to his attorney. She testified that Huzzie was able to discuss with her the details of the trial and that he remembered his own testimony at trial and that of the other witnesses.
Considering the testimony of Huzzie's trial attorney, the transcript of the trial, and the conflicting expert testimony, we find the trial court properly exercised its discretion in determining that Huzzie was competent at the time of trial. Smalls, 153 Ga.App. at 255-257, 265 S.E.2d 83; Levitt v. State, 170 Ga. App. 32-34, 316 S.E.2d 6 (1984). It follows that the trial court also correctly denied Huzzie's motion for a new trial made on the basis that his trial attorney was ineffective for failing to raise the competency issue. Morris v. State, 226 Ga.App. 535, 536-539, 488 S.E.2d 685 (1997). Assuming, without deciding, that trial counsel had or could have acquired information sufficient to warrant further investigation of Huzzie's mental condition prior to or during the trial, Johnson v. State, 222 Ga.App. 722, 728(9), 475 S.E.2d 918 (1996); Morris, 226 Ga.App. at 538-539,488 S.E.2d 685. Since the evidence supported the trial court's determination that Huzzie was competent at the time of the trial, there was no showing of prejudice under Strickland.
3. Huzzie contends the trial court erred by denying his motion for a new trial made on the competency issue because the State failed to carry its burden of showing there was sufficient evidence to make a meaningful retrospective determination that he was competent at the time of the trial.
This argument is based on the holding in Baker v. State, 250 Ga. 187, 192-193, 297 S.E.2d 9 (1982). Baker held that the defendant has a right under the United States Constitution not to be put on trial while incompetent and that, where sufficient doubt as to the defendant's competency is raised during the criminal proceedings, due process requires the trial court to give the defendant an adequate hearing on the issue of competency. Id. at 189-190, 297 S.E.2d 9. Recognizing that these constitutional requirements continue throughout the criminal proceedings both prior to and during the trial of the main case itself, Baker held that "the trial court has the inherent authority and duty to question competency before and during the trial and if at any time while criminal proceedings are pending, the court observes facts which raise doubt as to the sanity of the accused, or such facts are brought to its attention by counsel, the question of his sanity should be settled before further steps are taken." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Id. at 190-191, 297 S.E.2d 9.
In Baker there was evidence presented before and during the trial which raised doubt as to the defendant's competency, but no hearing was conducted to investigate the defendant's competency. Accordingly, Baker concluded that the due process requirements for an adequate hearing on the issue of the defendant's competency were not met in the trial court. Id. at 192, 297 S.E.2d 9. To remedy this failure, Baker remanded the case for a hearing to determine whether the defendant was competent at the time of trial. Id. at 192-193, 297 S.E.2d 9. In remanding the case, Baker held: Id. at 193, 297 S.E.2d 9.
In the present case, Huzzie made no special plea pursuant to OCGA § 17-7-130...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Christensen v. State
...138(1), 453 S.E.2d 110 (1995). 19. Rayburn v. State, 194 Ga.App. 676, 677-678(4), 391 S.E.2d 780 (1990). 20. Huzzie v. State, 236 Ga.App. 192, 197(6), 512 S.E.2d 5 (1999). 21. Lawson v. State, 224 Ga.App. 645, 649(4), 481 S.E.2d 856 (1997). 22. Compare Jackson v. State, 237 Ga.App. 746, 747......
-
Haygood v. State
...punctuation omitted.) Id. at 113-114(4)(b), 635 S.E.2d 582. 23. See Scott, supra at 114(4)(b), 635 S.E.2d 582; Huzzie v. State, 236 Ga.App. 192, 194(2), 512 S.E.2d 5 (1999). 24. See Scott, supra at 113(4)(b), 635 S.E.2d 25. See Mendoza, supra. 26. See Whitner v. State, 202 Ga.App. 608, 609,......
-
Flesche v. State, A01A2131.
...and the basic presumptions permitted by law. Butler v. State, 225 Ga.App. 288, 291, 483 S.E.2d 385 (1997); see Huzzie v. State, 236 Ga.App. 192, 194(2), 512 S.E.2d 5 (1999). Nor need the court accept the testimony of relatives on such. Mitchell, supra, 207 Ga. App. at 308(3), 427 S.E.2d Abs......
- Williams v. State