 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Gleeson12/7/2000
Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Robert O. Wefald, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Opinion of the Court by Maring, Justice.
[ ] George Gleeson appeals from a judgment of conviction entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of driving a motor vehicle while his driver's license privilege was revoked. We affirm the judgment.
I.
[ ] George Gleeson's driver's license was revoked on October 8, 1998. On July 15, 1999, Gleeson was arrested for driving a motor vehicle while his license privilege was revoked.
[ ] Gleeson made an initial appearance before the trial court following his arrest. During his initial appearance, Gleeson appropriately answered questions regarding his address and his employment history and stated he understood the charge pending against him.
[ ] The trial court scheduled a pretrial conference for September 13, 1999. Gleeson failed to appear at the pretrial conference apparently because he believed his attorney needed more time to prepare his defense. The pretrial conference was rescheduled for October 5, 1999, and Gleeson did appear. Gleeson expressed to the court that his attorney was inadequate and ineffective. As the pretrial conference progressed, however, Gleeson indicated to the court his court-appointed counsel could continue to represent him.
[ ] Gleeson fired his attorney just before trial. A jury trial was held on March 23, 1999. His attorney made the court aware of his dismissal before trial began. Shortly thereafter, Gleeson changed his mind and allowed his attorney to proceed in representing him.
[ ] During trial, Gleeson did not dispute that he was driving a vehicle while his license was revoked. Instead, he asserted an affirmative defense of lack of notice. He claimed the Department of Transportation ("DOT") failed to give him notice of the order of suspension. Gleeson stated during his testimony, however, that he had received notice of the suspension. His attorney asked Gleeson if he was confused, and Gleeson responded no. His attorney then asked Gleeson if there was anything more he wanted to add to his testimony, and Gleeson testified about the entire incident in a long narrative. Gleeson testified that he never received notice of the DOT hearing revoking his license. The jury returned a guilty verdict on the offense. That same day, Gleeson filed his Notice of Appeal. At no time during or after the trial did either party or the court raise the issue of Gleeson's competency.
II.
[ ] Gleeson contends the trial court erred in not conducting a competency hearing in order to determine if he was competent to stand trial. Gleeson concedes he did not request a competency hearing during trial. He argues, however, that based on his behavior and testimony throughout the proceedings, the trial court should have ordered a competency hearing sua sponte. We disagree.
[ ] Before we will notice an error not brought to the attention of the trial court it must constitute an obvious error affecting the defendant's substantial rights. State v. Burke, 2000 ND 25, 16, 606 N.W.2d 108. An error affecting substantial rights must be prejudicial or affect the outcome of the proceedings. State v. Strutz, 2000 ND 22, 20, 606 N.W.2d 886. After reviewing the entire record, we conclude the trial court did not err in failing to order a competency hearing sua sponte of the defendant.
[ ] It has long been held the conviction of a mentally incompetent accused is a violation of constitutional due process. Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960). The United States Supreme Court h
Page 1 2 3 4 North Dakota DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|