WA Legal Roundup - Washington State Supreme Court
Heddrick's competency was questioned. He was sent for an eval. The reports came back. He had two lawyers on two different charges. The reports came back and the the counsel that brought the competency withdrew it. Counsel did not sign for other counsel as to the competency, however.
Now, competency procedure wasn't fully followed in either case. RCW 10.77.065(1)(a)(i) requires the reports to be entered into evidence, and one of the doc's findings was never memorialized in a report and given to the court and the parties. Instead, the court relied on waiver of that process by counsel, even though, "It is axiomatic that a person incompetent to stand trial cannot affect a knowing or intelligent waiver," and competency procedures are "mandatory and not merely directory." The court instead followed a court of appeals opinion that such procedure may be waived by counsel.
I don't like this opinion one bit. No offense to those who wrote it. That counsel be able to waive the competency of their client means that counsel, and not the client, is controlling the decision.