Background
Petitioner Alex Hunter Mills was indicted on two counts of third-degree sexual assault for acts involving a twelve-year-old victim when he was eighteen. Following the indictment, questions arose regarding his competency to stand trial, stemming from a possible intellectual disability related to an alleged traumatic brain injury (TBI) from a childhood ATV accident. An initial forensic psychiatric evaluation found Mills incompetent, citing cognitive deficits and a lack of familiarity with the legal system, but also found he could be restored to competency.
The circuit court committed Mills to a state hospital for competency restoration. Subsequent evaluations by two different psychologists concluded that Mills had been restored to competency. After a hearing where all three experts testified, the circuit court found Mills competent to stand trial. The case proceeded to trial, where a jury convicted Mills on both counts.
He was sentenced to consecutive terms of one to five years, which were suspended in favor of placement at a youthful offender center for six months to two years, followed by a twenty-five-year term of supervised release. Mills appealed his convictions, challenging the competency determination process.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the circuit court’s ruling, finding no abuse of discretion in determining that Mills was competent to stand trial. Mills argued on appeal that his due process rights were violated because the competency evaluations improperly focused on mental health issues instead of the intellectual disability allegedly caused by his TBI. The Court rejected this argument, agreeing with the State that the statutory evaluation process was sufficient to assess his fitness for trial, regardless of the underlying cause of his cognitive issues.
The Court reiterated that the legal standard for competency requires that a defendant has a sufficient present ability to consult with their lawyer and a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings. The expert testimony from the competency hearing established that Mills met this threshold after his restoration treatment. The Court noted one psychologist’s testimony that the evaluations were conducted years after the alleged TBI and would have captured any resulting cognitive deficits. Therefore, the circuit court had a sound basis for its decision.
Furthermore, the Court declined to address Mills’s request for a new, “retroactive” competency evaluation focused on the TBI. It found the issue was not preserved for appeal because trial counsel had expressly stated during the competency hearing that they were not seeking a fourth evaluation. Because the argument was not properly raised below, the appellate court would not consider it.
Key Takeaways
- A court’s determination of competency to stand trial focuses on the defendant’s present functional ability to understand legal proceedings and assist counsel, not on the specific medical cause of any cognitive impairment.
- The legal process for competency evaluations is considered adequate even if it doesn’t distinguish between a mental health condition and an intellectual disability from a traumatic brain injury, so long as it assesses the defendant’s current cognitive functions.
- To preserve an issue for appellate review, a party must clearly raise it in the trial court. An argument is waived if counsel expressly disclaims it or fails to make a specific request or objection on the record.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the established legal standard for competency in West Virginia, emphasizing a functional over a diagnostic approach. It clarifies for legal practitioners that the primary question in a competency hearing is what the defendant can presently understand and do, not why they might be impaired. The court is not required to pinpoint the exact origin of a defendant’s challenges, whether from a TBI or a psychiatric condition, as long as their ability to participate in their own defense is properly evaluated and established.
The ruling also serves as a critical reminder to trial attorneys about the mechanics of appellate preservation. By explicitly stating they were not seeking an additional evaluation, the petitioner’s counsel effectively closed the door on that argument for any future appeal. This underscores the finality of strategic decisions made in the trial court and the importance of creating a clear record to protect a client’s rights on appeal.