In a pro se proceeding, in what circumstances will the trial judge strike down the motion of competence?

Also, it seems only reasonable that the state courts should have the first attempt to equate the procedures used in this case with the constitutional requirements involved in the procedure used to determine whether one remains competent to proceed with trial, and to determine whether a completely ex parte, non-record proceeding initiated and determined by the trial judge, and then simply announced in court, satisfies those procedures. As the state appellate court noted, its statutory procedures regarding possible incompetence were designed to respond to federal substantive constitutional requirements. People v. Jones , 2012 WL 3860801, at * 14.

In recommending that the competence claim be exhausted in state court, including any necessary evidentiary hearings on the facts, the undersigned is making no pronouncement on its validity. Further, no one doubts the constitutional mandate that a person incompetent to proceed to trial may not proceed until competence is regained, if ever. See People v. Jones at *14 (citing the pertinent cases). The issue here revolves about a trial judge making an unexplained, sua sponte inquiry of medical personnel, which in the case of a pro se defendant, involves not only an ability to comprehend the basics of the criminal proceeding, but also a modicum of ability to participate as his own counsel. See Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (2008).¹⁴ And it may have

Page 27