accused - Instructions to physician. A. Upon filing of an application for determination of competency, the court shall set a hearing date, which shall be as soon as practicable, but at least one (1) day after service of notice as provided by Section 1175.2 of this title. B. The court shall hold a hearing on the date provided. At the hearing, the court shall examine the application for determination of competency to determine if it alleges facts sufficient to raise a doubt as to the competency of the person. Any additional evidence tending to create a doubt as to the competency of the person may be presented at this hearing. C. If the court finds there is no doubt as to the competency of the person, it shall order the criminal proceedings to resume. D. 1. a. If the court finds there is a doubt as to the competency of the person, it shall order the person to be examined by the Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services or by a qualified forensic examiner designated by the Department to perform competency examinations. b. In addition, the Developmental Disabilities Services Division and the Office of Public Guardian of the Department of Human Services shall receive written notice from the district attorney who filed the
criminal petition, and be authorized by order of the court to have a psychologist or other appropriate clinician participate with professionals assigned by any other public or private agency in any competency evaluation where developmental or intellectual disability may be involved. The psychologist or clinician employed, by contract or otherwise, by the Department of Human Services may issue a separate opinion and recommendation to the court. In such cases where intellectual disability may be involved, the Office of Public Guardian shall have standing to participate in any stage of the proceedings as deemed necessary by the Office. 2. The person shall be examined by a qualified forensic examiner on an outpatient basis prior to referral for any necessary inpatient evaluation, as ordered by the court. The outpatient examination may be conducted in the community, the jail or detention facility where the person is held. 3. If the court determines that the person whose competency is in question may be dangerous as defined in Section 1175.1 of this title, it shall order the person retained in a secure facility until the completion of the competency hearing provided in Section 1175.4 of this title. If the court determines the person may be dangerous as defined in Section 1175.1 of this title because the individual is a person requiring treatment as defined in Section 1-103 of Title 43A of the Oklahoma Statutes, it may commit the person to the custody of the Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services or any other state agency or private facility for the examination required by this subsection. The person shall be required to undergo examination for a period of time sufficient for the qualified forensic examiner or examiners to reach a conclusion as to competency, and the court shall impose a reasonable time limitation for such period of examination. E. The qualified forensic examiner or examiners shall receive instructions that they shall examine the patient to determine: 1. If the person is able to appreciate the nature of the charges made against such person; 2. If the person is able to consult with the lawyer and rationally assist in the preparation of the defense of such person; 3. If the person is unable to appreciate the nature of the charges or to consult and rationally assist in the preparation of the defense, whether the person can attain competency within a reasonable period of time as defined in Section 1175.1 of this title if provided with a course of treatment, therapy or training; 4. If the person is a person requiring treatment as defined by Section 1-103 of Title 43A of the Oklahoma Statutes;
5. If the person is incompetent because the person is intellectually disabled as defined in Section 1408 of Title 10 of the Oklahoma Statutes; 6. If the requirements of paragraphs 4 and 5 of this subsection are not established, the reasoning for which the defendant is otherwise incompetent; and 7. If the person were released, whether such person would presently be dangerous as defined in Section 1175.1 of this title. F. Upon completion of the competency evaluation, the Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services or qualified forensic examiner designated by the Department to perform competency examinations shall notify the court of its findings. If the person is in the custody of the Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services, the person shall be returned to the court in the customary manner within five (5) business days. If the person is not returned within that time, the county in which the proceedings are to be held shall pay the costs of maintaining the person at the institution or facility for the period of time the person remains at the institution or facility in excess of the five-day period. Added by Laws 1980, c. 336, § 3, emerg. eff. June 25, 1980. Amended by Laws 1990, c. 51, § 17, emerg. eff. April 9, 1990; Laws 1993, c. 323, § 1, emerg. eff. June 7, 1993; Laws 1997, c. 407, § 5, eff. Nov. 1, 1997; Laws 2000, c. 421, § 4, eff. Nov. 1, 2000; Laws 2004, c. 106, § 3, eff. April 1, 2005; Laws 2015, c. 300, § 1, emerg. eff. May 11, 2015; Laws 2019, c. 475, § 21, eff. Nov. 1, 2019; Laws 2024, c. 73, § 2, eff. Nov. 1, 2024.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
26
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case:
Mooney v. State, 1999 OK CR 34 (Okla. Crim. App. 1999).
Mooney v. State, 1999 OK CR 34 (Okla. Crim. App. 1999).
· cites it 4× “The right to a jury trial on the issue of competency only attaches after the initial application for determination of competency has been granted and a competency examination has been conducted.”
Cargle v. State, 909 P.2d 806 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995).
· cites it 2× “22 O.S.Supp. 1993, § 1175.3. Following this initial determination and upon application, the court is required to hold a hearing on the competency issue.”
Bryson v. State, 876 P.2d 240 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994).
· cites it 2× “Pursuant to 22 O.S.1981, § 1175.3, Appellant filed a motion for determination of competency, a hearing was held by the trial court and the application examined to determine whether sufficient facts had been alleged to raise a doubt as to Appellant’s competency to stand trial.”
Boltz v. State, 806 P.2d 1117 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991).
· cites it 2× “Initially, appellant contends that the trial court did not provide him with an independent mental examination and did not conduct a post-examination competence hearing. In response to an application for determination of competency, the district court held a hearing on September…”
Phillips v. State, 1999 OK CR 38 (Okla. Crim. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “ś 12 Pursuant to 22 O.S.1991, § 1175.3, Appellant filed a Motion for Determination of Competency based upon the allegation a psychotic disorder had rendered him incompetent to assist counsel.”
Gilbert v. State, 951 P.2d 98 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997).
· cites it 2× “3, Appellant filed a motion for determination of competency, a hearing was held by the trial court and the application examined to determine whether sufficient facts had been alleged to raise a doubt as to Appellant’s competency to stand trial.”
Hammon v. State, 898 P.2d 1287 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995).
· cites it 2× “on able to appreciate the nature of the charges against him? 2) Is this person able to consult with his lawyer and rationally assist in the preparation of his defense? 3) If the answer to question 1 or 2 is no, can the person attain competency within a reasonable time if…”
Nolen v. State, 2021 OK CR 5 (Okla. Crim. App. 2021).
· cites it 3× “The order required that a doctor or doctors from the Oklahoma Department of Mental Health examine Nolen and make the following determinations required by 22 O.S.2011, § 1175.3(E): 1. If the person is able to appreciate the nature of the charges made against such person; 2.”
Scott v. State, 730 P.2d 7 (Okla. Crim. App. 1986).
· cites it 2× “” Title 22 O.S.1981, § 1175.3(C). If, on the other hand, the trial court determines that a doubt exists, it must order a competency examination.”
Kelly v. State, 735 P.2d 566 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987).
· cites it 3× “Title 22 O.S.1981, § 1175.3(B). If, after holding the initial hearing, the trial court finds that ‘there is no doubt as to the competency of the person, it shall order the criminal proceedings to resume.”
Valdez v. State, 900 P.2d 363 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995).
“Quinn’s written evaluation also met the requirements set forth in 22 O.S.1981, § 1175.3, and was thus sufficient.”
Bryson v. Ward, 187 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 1999).
“See Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1175.3 . Furthermore, Bryson failed to show that confidential information actually was at stake, thus requiring an ex parte hearing.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1175.3(B) — 3 cases
Bryson v. State, 876 P.2d 240 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994).
“Pursuant to 22 O.S.1981, § 1175.3, Appellant filed a motion for determination of competency, a hearing was held by the trial court and the application examined to determine whether sufficient facts had been alleged to raise a doubt as to Appellant’s competency to stand trial.”
Gilbert v. State, 951 P.2d 98 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997).
“3, Appellant filed a motion for determination of competency, a hearing was held by the trial court and the application examined to determine whether sufficient facts had been alleged to raise a doubt as to Appellant’s competency to stand trial.”
Kelly v. State, 735 P.2d 566 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987).
“Title 22 O.S.1981, § 1175.3(B). If, after holding the initial hearing, the trial court finds that ‘there is no doubt as to the competency of the person, it shall order the criminal proceedings to resume.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1175.3(C) — 2 cases
Scott v. State, 730 P.2d 7 (Okla. Crim. App. 1986).
“” Title 22 O.S.1981, § 1175.3(C). If, on the other hand, the trial court determines that a doubt exists, it must order a competency examination.”
Kelly v. State, 735 P.2d 566 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987).
“Title 22 O.S.1981, § 1175.3(B). If, after holding the initial hearing, the trial court finds that ‘there is no doubt as to the competency of the person, it shall order the criminal proceedings to resume.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1175.3(D) — 2 cases
— Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1175.3(E) — 6 cases
Nolen v. State, 2021 OK CR 5 (Okla. Crim. App. 2021).
“The order required that a doctor or doctors from the Oklahoma Department of Mental Health examine Nolen and make the following determinations required by 22 O.S.2011, § 1175.3(E): 1. If the person is able to appreciate the nature of the charges made against such person; 2.”
Scott v. State, 730 P.2d 7 (Okla. Crim. App. 1986).
“” Title 22 O.S.1981, § 1175.3(C). If, on the other hand, the trial court determines that a doubt exists, it must order a competency examination.”
Kelly v. State, 735 P.2d 566 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987).
“Title 22 O.S.1981, § 1175.3(B). If, after holding the initial hearing, the trial court finds that ‘there is no doubt as to the competency of the person, it shall order the criminal proceedings to resume.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.