Mr. Van Woudenberg claims the state deprived him of procedural due process when it found him competent to stand trial using an improper burden of proof standard. He also claims he was denied substantive due process because he was incompetent at the time of his trial.Procedural Competency ClaimA petitioner can assert a procedural competency claim by alleging that the trial court either failed to hold a competency hearing after the defendant's mental competence was put in issue,see Walker v. Attorney Gen., 167 F.3d 1339, 1343 (10th Cir.),cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 449 (1999), or held a competency hearing but employed an unconstitutional burden of proof,see Rogers v. Gibson, 173 F.3d 1278, 1290 (10th Cir. 1999),cert.
We conclude Clayton was not deprived of due process by having his competency determined retrospectively. See Walker v. Attorney General, 167 F.3d 1339, 1347 n.4 (10th Cir. 1999).Clayton also contends the trial court employed an unconstitutional burden of proof at his competency hearing by requiring him to prove his competence by clear and convincing evidence.
denied, 120 S. Ct. 1438 (2000). Although these competency determinations did rest on Mr. McGregor's continued treatment with antipsychotic medication, the evidence fails to indicate any significant disruption in his medication during trial.2 See Walker v. Attorney Gen., 167 F.3d 1339, 1346 (10th Cir.) (competency determination could change if, among other things, petitioner failed to continue taking his medication), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 449 (1999).
Hindsight does not entitle a federal court to upset the result of a state proceeding that was conducted in a fundamentally fair manner.To justify an evidentiary hearing at trial to explore the possibility of incompetence to stand trial, a defendant must produce "clear and convincing evidence [raising] threshold doubt about his competency." Nguyen v. Reynolds, 131 F.3d 1340, 1346 (10th Cir. 1997), quoting from Lokos v. Capps, 625 F.2d 1258, 1261 (5th Cir. 1980); see also Grimes, slip op. 2-3; Walker v. Attorney General of Oklahoma, 167 F.3d 1339, 1342-47 (10th Cir. 1999). Cf. Cooper v. Oklahoma,517 U.S. 348(1996) (preponderance standard governs the decision once competence has been drawn into question).