Committee advances competency-process bill after debate over mandatory hearings and ex parte protections

A committee advanced a bill intended to standardize how courts handle competency evaluations and restoration for criminal defendants who may be mentally incompetent to stand trial.

Senator Brian Strickland, sponsor of Senate Bill 132, described the measure as aimed at improving gatekeeping for competency evaluations and speeding restoration where appropriate. "This is a bill just to remind you all that deals with the issue of how we handle the competency process with someone charged with a crime that's not competent to face their charges," Strickland said, and he described the measure as coming from a Behavioral Health Reform and Innovation Commission subcommittee.

The bill requires an early hearing where a judge, defense counsel or prosecutor "notice[s] a situation" raising competency concerns. The transcript shows the main point of contention centered on language in the bill that would make the hearing mandatory ("shall") rather than discretionary ("may"). Defense-oriented witnesses and organizations urged the committee to change the wording to give courts discretion, citing due-process and appellate concerns.

Lisa Marie Bristol, Gwinnett County Solicitor General, said the hearing would help courts and prosecutors avoid lengthy evaluation queues and unnecessary detention. Bristol described a recent local case where a defendant "has been in custody now for 7 months on a criminal trespass" while waiting for competency processes and argued a hearing could prevent unnecessary delays.

Maisie Lynn Gertin, executive director of the Georgia Association for Criminal Defense Lawyers, and Sarah Stewart, a criminal-defense practitioner, argued the bill as written risks violating due process and appellate precedent on ex parte competency matters. Stewart cautioned that the Georgia Supreme Court's Putnam decision requires ex parte handling to protect attorney-client strategy and warned that mandatory hearings that permit state involvement could expose convictions to reversal. Gertin recommended changing the draft to let courts decide whether to hold a hearing.

Supporters from the behavioral-health and recovery community urged passage. Jeff Breedlove of the Georgia Council for Recovery said the provision would provide more timely access to restoration services and help people get care instead of cycling through jails. Kim Jones, executive director of NAMI Georgia, told the committee she has heard of "over 700 people awaiting forensic evaluations," and argued current delays harm individuals and public safety.

Other witnesses highlighted practical concerns. Zachary Perry of the City of Atlanta Public Defender's Office urged adding a pathway for municipal and recorder's courts, noting DBHDD does not accept referrals from those courts and those local courts handle many cases; he asked for a local-court alternative for competency processing.

After hearing testimony and debating an amendment to change "shall" to "may" on the early-hearing language, the committee voted the amendment down and approved the bill to move forward. The transcript records a voice vote and the chair said the bill "passes." No roll-call tally is recorded in the transcript.

Why it matters: supporters said the bill provides consistent procedures, prevents lengthy pre-evaluation detention and better targets restoration resources; opponents warned it could intrude on attorney-client strategy and raise appellate risk if ex parte protections are not maintained. The committee debated whether courts should be mandated to hold hearings or retain discretion and whether municipal courts need a tailored mechanism.