MARIO SIBUG v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Appeals, Battaglia, Filed Nov. 25, 2015,
Competency – CP 3-104 requires that when a defendant is found incompetent, a hearing must be held before the defendant can be found competent again in the same case — even if there is an intervening event such as a retrial.

(Dissent — Adkins w/Watts – Would have found competency issue wiped away with new trial)

This decision spends 49 pages on what should have been a 1-page discussion. But it then, with minimal discussion, found clear error when the trial judge (who personally observed the defendant testify and interact with the court) found the defendant competent at sentencing.

The (kinda, but not really) short version: In 1998, defendant pointed a gun at his kids. In 1999 he was charged and found not competent to stand trial because of “religious delusions.” In 2000 he was committed and sent to Perkins. In 2003, doctors found him competent and sent a draft order of competence to the court (which was apparently never signed or docketed). In 2004, he pled guilty. He subsequently filed a coram nobis once he found out he was to be deported and a new trial was held in 2008. He was convicted by a jury, and prior to sentencing his attorney filed a motion stating that “in retrospect” defense counsel “believes that Mr. Sibug was incompetent to stand trial.” The trial court held a hearing, defense failed to present evidence, and the trial court found the defendant competent.

His religious delusions have led the defendant to believe that the judicial system and its agents are “of Satan.”

Hard to see where that renders him incompetent…

Competency – When a defendant makes an allegation of incompetency to stand trial and there is no evidence in the record as to the defendant’s incompetency to stand trial, an accused must be afforded an opportunity to present evidence. Citing Roberts v. State.

Competency – Trial court has a sua sponte duty to evaluate competency “if there was a bona fide doubt created by evidence on the record”