Can low IQ alone establish incompetency to stand trial in Utah? State v. Galindo Explained

In State v. Galindo, the Utah Court of Appeals examined whether defense counsel provided ineffective assistance by stipulating to a defendant’s competency to stand trial and by failing to consult with court-appointed psychologists during competency evaluations.

Background and Facts
After Galindo shot a man four times, he was charged with attempted murder. Defense counsel petitioned for a competency evaluation, noting that Galindo “does not appear to be able to comprehend what is going on” during court hearings. Two psychologists examined Galindo and both concluded he was competent to stand trial, despite his low IQ. Defense counsel stipulated to Galindo’s competency based on these reports, though he acknowledged not speaking directly with one of the evaluating psychologists, Dr. Hawks.

Key Legal Issues
Galindo raised two claims of ineffective assistance of counsel: first, that counsel should not have stipulated to his competency, and second, that counsel was deficient for failing to discuss his observations with Dr. Hawks. Galindo also sought a Rule 23B remand to supplement the record with additional findings regarding the second claim.

Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court applied the Strickland standard, requiring both deficient performance and resulting prejudice. Regarding competency, the court emphasized that under Utah Code § 77-15-2, a person is incompetent only if a mental disorder or intellectual disability results in inability to understand proceedings or consult with counsel. Critically, the court held that “a low IQ score alone is not enough to show that a defendant is incompetent.” Since both psychologists found Galindo competent, counsel’s stipulation represented reasonable professional judgment. The court denied the Rule 23B motion, finding insufficient allegations to demonstrate that counsel’s failure to speak with Dr. Hawks would have changed the competency determination.

Practice Implications
This decision establishes that competency challenges require more than evidence of low intellectual functioning. Practitioners must present specific evidence showing inability to understand proceedings or assist counsel. When seeking Rule 23B remands for ineffective assistance claims, attorneys must provide detailed affidavits demonstrating both deficient performance and reasonable probability of a different outcome, not merely generalized concerns about a client’s mental abilities.