Utah Court of Appeals
Can defense counsel rely on a competency evaluation without requesting a hearing? Price City v. Buck Explained
Summary
Buck was convicted of retail theft after skip-scanning groceries. After trial, defense counsel petitioned for a competency evaluation, and the evaluator found Buck competent to proceed to sentencing despite her claims of innocence and beliefs inconsistent with the evidence. Buck appealed, claiming ineffective assistance for not requesting a competency hearing and plain error for the court not ordering a new trial.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals recently addressed when defense counsel can reasonably rely on a competency evaluation without requesting an additional hearing in Price City v. Buck. The decision provides important guidance for practitioners navigating competency issues in criminal cases.
Background and Facts
Jessica Buck was convicted of retail theft after skip-scanning two cartloads of groceries. After trial but before sentencing, defense counsel filed a competency petition based on Buck’s insistence that she was innocent and her claims that the person in surveillance footage was not her. The court ordered a competency evaluation. Despite noting Buck’s inconsistent beliefs about her case and the justice system, the evaluator concluded Buck was competent to proceed, finding she had a rational understanding of the charges and could assist in her defense.
Key Legal Issues
Buck raised two claims on appeal: (1) that defense counsel provided ineffective assistance by not requesting a competency hearing where the evaluator could be cross-examined, and (2) that the trial court committed plain error by not ordering a new trial to evaluate her competency at the time of trial.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court rejected both arguments. Regarding ineffective assistance, the court held it was reasonable for counsel to rely on the evaluator’s thorough report that specifically addressed his concerns. The court noted that Buck failed to specify what counsel should have asked during cross-examination, and the report was comprehensive. For the plain error claim, the court emphasized that competency is assessed contemporaneously and cannot be retrospectively determined, citing established precedent that present incompetence does not indicate past incompetence.
Practice Implications
This decision clarifies that defense counsel can reasonably forego requesting a competency hearing when a thorough evaluation addresses specific concerns and finds the defendant competent. However, practitioners should ensure they have concrete reasons for any cross-examination before requesting a hearing, as courts will not find deficient performance when counsel makes reasonable strategic decisions based on expert evaluations.
Case Details
Case Name
Price City v. Buck
Citation
2025 UT App 129
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20230749-CA
Date Decided
August 28, 2025
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
Defense counsel does not provide ineffective assistance by declining to request a competency hearing when relying on a thorough evaluator’s report that addresses counsel’s concerns and finds the defendant competent to proceed.
Standard of Review
Ineffective assistance of counsel claims raised for the first time on appeal are reviewed as a matter of law; plain error claims are reviewed for correctness
Practice Tip
When a competency evaluator’s report thoroughly addresses defense counsel’s articulated concerns and concludes the defendant is competent, counsel can reasonably forego requesting a competency hearing without risking an ineffective assistance claim.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.