State v. Wilkins: Waiver of Statutory Competency Hearing Rights under Section 15A-1002

Introduction

The Supreme Court of North Carolina decision in State v. Wilkins, 378 N.C. 1 (2024), addresses whether a criminal defendant may waive his statutory right to a competency hearing under N.C.G.S. § 15A-1002. After an unopposed motion and court order for a competency evaluation in March 2018, the State never transported the defendant for that evaluation. The defendant posted bond, proceeded to trial without further raising competency, and was convicted in July 2021. On appeal, the Court of Appeals split, and the Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether the statutory right—long held to be waivable—was in fact waived by the defendant’s failure to press it at trial. Chief Justice Newby, writing for the majority, held that the defendant waived his statutory right and affirmed the Court of Appeals.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision. The Court began by distinguishing the statutory right to a competency hearing under § 15A-1002—which may be waived—from the nonwaivable constitutional right. Observing that the defendant never reasserted competency issues after bonding out and made multiple affirmations of competence during the trial process, the Court concluded that the statutory right was waived “by express conduct, failure to assert it in apt time, or conduct inconsistent with a purpose to insist upon it,” as framed in State v. Young, 291 N.C. 562 (1977). Because the statutory right was waived, the Court did not reach any constitutional due-process arguments and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ ruling.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

State v. Young, 291 N.C. 562 (1977) – Established that the statutory right to a competency hearing may be waived by failure to assert it at trial or conduct inconsistent with preserving the right.
State v. Dollar, 292 N.C. 344 (1977) – Held that an unchallenged competency report and the defendant’s silence amounted to a waiver of further hearing.
State v. King, 353 N.C. 457 (2001) – Reiterated waiver when counsel raises competency briefly but abandons the issue before trial.
State v. Badgett, 361 N.C. 234 (2007) – Applied Young and found waiver where the issue was neither pursued nor raised again pretrial.
State v. Sides, 376 N.C. 449 (2020) – Held that the constitutional right to competency hearing is nonwaivable when there is substantial evidence of incompetency, but did not disturb the statutory waiver line.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s decision rests on three pillars:

Statutory vs. Constitutional Right: § 15A-1002’s competency hearing right is statutory and waivable. By contrast, the Due Process Clause’s competency right is nonwaivable when there is “substantial evidence” of incompetence (citing Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (1966)).
Apt Time to Assert Right: After bonding out, the defendant had repeated opportunities—in plea hearings, trial strategy discussions, and at trial—to reassert or enforce the competency order. His silence constituted a waiver under the test in Young (“express consent, failure to assert it in apt time, or conduct inconsistent with…insist[ing] upon it”).
Affirmative Demonstrations of Competence: On numerous occasions—post-bond hearings, rejection of plea offers, decisions not to testify, stipulation to habitual felon status—defendant personally told the court he understood proceedings, understood his rights, and was competent to decide trial strategy.

Impact

This ruling reaffirms that defendants in North Carolina can waive their statutory right to competency hearings by failing to pursue them actively. Key practical implications:

Defense counsel must vigilantly monitor court-ordered evaluations, especially when a defendant bonds out before completion.
Trial courts should enforce their own competency orders to prevent post-conviction claims rooted in statutory noncompliance.
Appellate courts will enforce the longstanding waiver principle for statutory competency rights, preserving § 15A-1002’s mandatory framework only when timely asserted or enforced.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Statutory vs. Constitutional Competency Rights
North Carolina law (statute) and the U.S. Constitution both protect a defendant who may be mentally unfit to stand trial. Under the Constitution, if there is real evidence someone cannot understand or assist in their defense, the court must hold a hearing—even over the defense or prosecution’s objection. Under North Carolina statutes (§ 15A-1002), the defendant or others may “raise” competency; the court must then hold a hearing. But unlike the constitutional right, the statutory right can be given up (waived) if the defendant never asks for it at the right time.

Waiver
Waiver happens when a person knowingly lets go of a right. If a defendant never says “I still want a competency hearing,” and instead proceeds with trial, the court will treat the right as relinquished—even if the statute says the hearing must follow a motion.

Conclusion

State v. Wilkins confirms that North Carolina’s statutory right to a competency hearing under § 15A-1002 is waivable by failure to reassert it at trial. The Court distinguished this statutory framework from the nonwaivable constitutional right to competency under federal due process. By repeatedly affirming competence—during pleas, trial strategy, and final sentencing—without seeking to complete the court-ordered evaluation, the defendant “failed to assert [his statutory] right in apt time” and acted inconsistently with insisting upon it. Lawyers and trial courts should take heed: once a competency hearing is triggered, it either must be completed quickly or risk elimination through waiver.