Facts: Petitioner Steven Heddrick Jr. was charged with felony harassment, and subsequently charged with custodial assault because of his involvement in an altercation with jailhouse staff while awaiting trial. The Superior Court for King County entered an order finding Henddrick competent to stand trial on the assault charge, but did not enter an equivalent order in the prior harassment case. The competency order in the assault case was signed in a proceeding attended by Henddrick’s assigned counsel for the harassment charge but not attended by his assigned counsel for the assault charge. The court found Henddrick competent to stand trial on the assault charge after assigned counsel on the harassment charge withdrew the competency challenge. The court entered the order without entering into the record either the physician’s report that evaluated Henddrick’s competency. Henddrick appealed, challenging the trial court’s failure to follow statutory procedures in finding him competent to stand trial in both felony prosecutions, and complained he was denied counsel in a critical stage of the proceedings because his assigned counsel for the custodial assault case was absent when the court entered the competency order. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment, and the Supreme Court of Washington granted Henddrick’s petition for review.
Question(s): Did the trial court deny Henddrick the assistance of counsel during a critical stage of the proceedings when it entered an order of competency in the presence of Henddrick’s counsel in another matter who refused to sign the order?
Conclusion: Justice Owens’ opinion for the Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding that Henddrick waived completion of the statutory competency procedures outlined in RCW §10.77.060 when his assigned counsel withdrew the challenge to competency. Henddrick’s complaint on appeal that the trial court should have proceeded despite his withdrawal of his competency challenge amounted to invited error. Therefore, Henddrick was not denied the assistance of counsel at a critical stage in the proceedings, in addition to the fact that his assigned counsel in the harassment case deferred to his assigned counsel in the assault case to withdraw the competency challenge.
Docket No. 80841-4 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 57420-5)
Petitioner: Steven Heddrick
(Counsel: Casey Grannis)
Respondent: State of Washington
(Counsel: Daniel T. Satterberg and Randi J. Austell)
Briefs:
- Appellant Brief in COA Case 57420-5-i
- Appellant Brief in COA Case 57469-8-i
- Petition for Review
- Reply Brief Dated 12-19-06
- Reply Brief Dated 12-21-06
- Respondent Brief Dated 11-2-06
- Respondent Brief Dated 11-22-06
- Statement of Additional Authority
- Statement of Additional Authority Received 2-9-09
- Statement of Additional Authority Received 6-26-09
- Supplemental Brief of Petitioner Heddrick
- Supplemental Brief of Respondent
Argument: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 10:00am
[Source: TVW, http://tvw.org]
Audio: Washington Supreme Court
Decided: Thursday, September 10th, 2009
Vote: 9-0
Opinion: 166 Wn.2d 898 (2009)
Court: Alexander4 Court (2008-2009)
Alexander
Johnson
Madsen
Sanders
Chambers
Owens
(Majority)
Sweeney
(Pro Tem)
Johnson
Stephens
Note: We post only slip opinion(s) as published at the time of the decision. Please consult Washington Reports printed volumes for the opinion(s) in their final form. Each opinion should appear next to the Justice who authored it.