Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Mississippi courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Dusky v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2009The United States Supreme Court has defined competency to stand trial as “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.” Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 402 , 80 S.Ct. 788 , 4 L.Ed.2d 824, 825 (1960) (per curiam). ¶ 25. 2009The United States Supreme Court has defined competency to stand trial as “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.” Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 402 , 80 S.Ct. 788 , 4 L.Ed.2d 824, 825 (1960) (per curiam). ¶ 25. | 2 | 2 |
Coleman v. Stategreen2 sentences2017Id. 2017Additionally, we have held that “the appropriate remedy for failure to hold a competency hearing is a new trial, not a retrospective competency hearing.” Smith, 149 So. 3d at 1035 (citing Coleman v. State, 127 So. 3d 161, 168 (Miss. 2013)). ¶125. | 1 | 2 |
Williams v. Stategreen2 sentences2017In Williams v. State, 205 Miss. 515, 524-25 , 39 So. 2d 3, 4 (1949), this Court held 17 The requirement of Rule 9.06 that a mental competency hearing take place after the trial court orders a mental evaluation does not place defense counsel in the position of committing an ethics violation, as suggested by Justice Coleman. 2017In Williams v. State, 205 Miss. 515, 524-25 , 39 So. 2d 3, 4 (1949), this Court held 17 The requirement of Rule 9.06 that a mental competency hearing take place after the trial court orders a mental evaluation does not place defense counsel in the position of committing an ethics violation, as suggested by Justice Coleman. | 1 | 1 |
Erik Wayne Hollie v. State of Mississippigreen2 sentences2017Therefore, we have held, “once a mental evaluation-is ordered, a competency hearing is mandatory.” Id. (emphasis added); see also Smith v. State, 149 So.3d 1027, 1029 (Miss. 2014) (reversing for an evidentiary hearing on a post-conviction claim that a mental competency hearing should have been held after the trial court ordered a mental evaluation); Beasley v. State, 136 So.3d 393, 398 (Miss. 2014) (the Court affirmed on the ground that an adequate competency hearing had been held after the mental evaluation); Jay v. State, 25 So.3d 257, 262 (Miss. 2009) (the Court reversed because no competen 2017Therefore, we have held, “once a mental evaluation is ordered, a competency hearing is mandatory.” Id. (emphasis added); see also Smith v. State, 149 So. 3d 1027, 1029 (Miss. 2014) (reversing for an evidentiary hearing on a post- conviction claim that a mental competency hearing should have been held after the trial court ordered a mental evaluation); Beasley v. State, 136 So. 3d 393, 398 (Miss. 2014) (the Court affirmed on the ground that an adequate competency hearing had been held after the mental evaluation); Jay v. State, 25 So. 3d 257, 262 (Miss. 2009) (the Court reversed because no 67 c | 1 | 1 |
Jay v. Stategreen2 sentences2017Therefore, we have held, “once a mental evaluation-is ordered, a competency hearing is mandatory.” Id. (emphasis added); see also Smith v. State, 149 So.3d 1027, 1029 (Miss. 2014) (reversing for an evidentiary hearing on a post-conviction claim that a mental competency hearing should have been held after the trial court ordered a mental evaluation); Beasley v. State, 136 So.3d 393, 398 (Miss. 2014) (the Court affirmed on the ground that an adequate competency hearing had been held after the mental evaluation); Jay v. State, 25 So.3d 257, 262 (Miss. 2009) (the Court reversed because no competen 2017Therefore, we have held, “once a mental evaluation is ordered, a competency hearing is mandatory.” Id. (emphasis added); see also Smith v. State, 149 So. 3d 1027, 1029 (Miss. 2014) (reversing for an evidentiary hearing on a post- conviction claim that a mental competency hearing should have been held after the trial court ordered a mental evaluation); Beasley v. State, 136 So. 3d 393, 398 (Miss. 2014) (the Court affirmed on the ground that an adequate competency hearing had been held after the mental evaluation); Jay v. State, 25 So. 3d 257, 262 (Miss. 2009) (the Court reversed because no 67 c | 1 | 1 |
Beasley v. Stategreen2 sentences2017Therefore, we have held, “once a mental evaluation-is ordered, a competency hearing is mandatory.” Id. (emphasis added); see also Smith v. State, 149 So.3d 1027, 1029 (Miss. 2014) (reversing for an evidentiary hearing on a post-conviction claim that a mental competency hearing should have been held after the trial court ordered a mental evaluation); Beasley v. State, 136 So.3d 393, 398 (Miss. 2014) (the Court affirmed on the ground that an adequate competency hearing had been held after the mental evaluation); Jay v. State, 25 So.3d 257, 262 (Miss. 2009) (the Court reversed because no competen 2017Therefore, we have held, “once a mental evaluation is ordered, a competency hearing is mandatory.” Id. (emphasis added); see also Smith v. State, 149 So. 3d 1027, 1029 (Miss. 2014) (reversing for an evidentiary hearing on a post- conviction claim that a mental competency hearing should have been held after the trial court ordered a mental evaluation); Beasley v. State, 136 So. 3d 393, 398 (Miss. 2014) (the Court affirmed on the ground that an adequate competency hearing had been held after the mental evaluation); Jay v. State, 25 So. 3d 257, 262 (Miss. 2009) (the Court reversed because no 67 c | 1 | 1 |
Donald Keith Smith v. State of Mississippigreen2 sentences2017Therefore, we have held, “once a mental evaluation-is ordered, a competency hearing is mandatory.” Id. (emphasis added); see also Smith v. State, 149 So.3d 1027, 1029 (Miss. 2014) (reversing for an evidentiary hearing on a post-conviction claim that a mental competency hearing should have been held after the trial court ordered a mental evaluation); Beasley v. State, 136 So.3d 393, 398 (Miss. 2014) (the Court affirmed on the ground that an adequate competency hearing had been held after the mental evaluation); Jay v. State, 25 So.3d 257, 262 (Miss. 2009) (the Court reversed because no competen 2017Therefore, we have held, “once a mental evaluation is ordered, a competency hearing is mandatory.” Id. (emphasis added); see also Smith v. State, 149 So. 3d 1027, 1029 (Miss. 2014) (reversing for an evidentiary hearing on a post- conviction claim that a mental competency hearing should have been held after the trial court ordered a mental evaluation); Beasley v. State, 136 So. 3d 393, 398 (Miss. 2014) (the Court affirmed on the ground that an adequate competency hearing had been held after the mental evaluation); Jay v. State, 25 So. 3d 257, 262 (Miss. 2009) (the Court reversed because no 67 c | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hearn v. State
green
2 sentences2017This Court has held that a competency hearing was not required after a court-ordered mental evaluation as long as "the purposes of Rule 9.06 were satisfied." In Hearn v. State , 3 So.3d 722 , 730 (Miss. 2008), this Court found that the purposes of Rule 9.06 were satisfied because one of Hearn's examining physicians had testified at trial about Hearn's competence and was cross-examined by Hearn's counsel. 2013Id. | 2 | 2013–2017 |
Allen Nicolaou v. State of Mississippi
green
1 sentence2020Upon review, we find that the issues addressed in Nicolaou’s current PCR motion were properly addressed and decided upon in Nicolaou v. State, 215 So. 3d 498 (Miss. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Howard v. State
green
1 sentence2001Howard, 701 So.2d at 280 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.