State v. Cooke

• Court: Court of Appeals of North Carolina
• Decided: February 18, 2026
• Docket: 25-527
• Status: Published
• Author: Judge Fred Gore

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. COA25-527

Filed 18 February 2026

Caldwell County, No. 21CRS000375-130

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

v.

DUSTIN NEAL COOKE, Defendant.

Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 11 December 2024 by Judge

George Cooper Bell in Caldwell County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of

Appeals 19 November 2025.

Attorney General Jeff Jackson, by Special Deputy Attorney General Kimberley A. D’Arruda, for the State-appellee.

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, by Jeffrey A. Wald, for defendant- appellant.

GORE, Judge.

Defendant Dustin Neal Cooke appeals from judgment entered upon jury

verdicts finding him guilty of felony larceny, felony possession of stolen goods, and

felony conspiracy to commit felony larceny. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to

N.C.G.S. §§ 7A-27(b) and 15A-1444(a), which provide for appellate review of final

criminal judgments of the superior courts.

The case presents two interlocking questions: (1) whether a prior judicial

incompetency order remains operative absent an express judicial finding restoring STATE V. COOKE

Opinion of the Court

competency, and (2) whether the trial court’s failure to hold a new competency

hearing or issue findings violated due process and N.C.G.S. § 15A-1002. Because the

record contains an unvacated order adjudicating defendant incompetent to proceed

and no subsequent judicial determination of restored competency, we conclude that

the trial court erred by proceeding to trial and entering judgment without first

determining that defendant’s competency had been restored. Accordingly, the proper

remedy is to vacate defendant’s convictions and remand for a new trial upon a judicial

determination that defendant is competent to proceed.

I.

On 13 March 2023, defense counsel moved for a forensic evaluation of

defendant, stating that defendant was not taking prescribed medication, exhibited

disorganized thoughts, appeared confused, and “at times does not seem to understand

the gravity of [the] situation.” The trial court granted the motion and appointed a

certified forensic evaluator.

After two subsequent orders were entered in April and May 2023 when the

evaluation could not be completed because defendant could not be located, forensic

evaluator Michelle Stroebel of Breathe Wellness Counseling PLLC conducted an

evaluation on 23 May 2023. Ms. Stroebel opined that defendant was not competent

to proceed, noting disorganized and delusional thought processes, impaired

communication, poor understanding of his legal situation, and psychotic symptoms

including delusions, confused speech, and social withdrawal.

-2- STATE V. COOKE

Relying on that evaluation, the Honorable Steven Warren entered an order on

12 June 2023 finding defendant incompetent to proceed and directing that an updated

evaluation be completed in September 2023.

A second evaluation was performed at Central Regional Hospital by Dr. Amy

Leeper, who issued a report dated 11 March 2024. Dr. Leeper concluded that

defendant was competent to proceed, though she acknowledged his prior psychotic

symptoms and cautioned that substance use could negatively influence his ability to

assist in his defense. The trial court, however, never issued an order adopting Dr.

Leeper’s report or finding defendant competent, nor did it make any oral finding of

restored competency.

At an administrative hearing on 1 July 2024, the prosecutor asked whether

“the last eval found that [defendant] was capable to proceed” and whether the court

“need[ed] to go through anything in Chapter 15A.” Defense counsel responded, “I

don’t think so.” The court made no further inquiry or finding on competency.

Defendant’s case was tried before the Honorable George C. Bell at the 10

December 2024 Criminal Session of Caldwell County Superior Court. The State

presented evidence that catalytic converters had been removed from several vehicles

at a local dealership and that police apprehended defendant in a nearby storage unit

containing tools and extension cords matching those seen on surveillance video. The

jury returned verdicts of guilty on all three charges.

At sentencing, the trial court arrested judgment on the possession-of-stolen-

-3- STATE V. COOKE

goods and conspiracy charges and imposed a mitigated sentence of five to fifteen

months, suspended for thirty-six months of supervised probation. The court found in

mitigation that defendant’s “limited mental capacity at the time of the commission of

the offense significantly reduced [his] culpability.” Defendant filed timely notice of

appeal on 17 December 2024.

II.

Defendant contends that the trial court erred by proceeding to trial without

first holding a new competency hearing or entering findings restoring competency, as

required by N.C.G.S. § 15A-1002 and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment. He argues that because the June 2023 order adjudicating him

incompetent to proceed was never vacated or superseded by a subsequent judicial

determination of competency, he remained legally incompetent at the time of trial.

The State responds that any error was waived or forfeited because defendant did not

request a hearing or object before trial, and that the March 2024 forensic report

finding defendant competent effectively restored his capacity to proceed. The State

further maintains that the trial court’s reliance on that report, even without a written

order, satisfied its statutory obligations and rendered any procedural omission

harmless.

Because defendant’s claims concern the trial court’s alleged noncompliance

with statutory requirements and alleged violations of constitutional due process, our

review is de novo. State v. Flow, 384 N.C. 528, 546 (2023). Under this standard, we

-4- STATE V. COOKE

consider the matter anew and freely substitute our judgment for that of the trial

court. State v. Wilkins, 386 N.C. 923, 928 (2024).

III.

A defendant may not be “tried, convicted, sentenced, or punished for a crime”

if, “by reason of mental illness or defect he is unable to understand the nature and

object of the proceedings[,] . . . comprehend his own situation” in relation to those

proceedings, or “assist in his defense in a rational or reasonable manner.” N.C.G.S.

§ 15A-1001(a) (2023). This statutory protection embodies a constitutional guarantee

that is “fundamental to an adversary system of justice.” Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S.

162, 172 (1975). A defendant who cannot rationally understand the proceedings or

consult with counsel is, “though physically present in the courtroom, . . . in reality

afforded no opportunity to defend himself.” Id. Accordingly, “[f]ailure of the trial

court to protect a defendant’s right not to be tried or convicted while mentally

incompetent deprives him of his due process right to a fair trial.” State v. McRae, 139

N.C. App. 387, 389 (2000) (citing Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 385 (1966)).

Section 15A-1002 requires the trial court to conduct a hearing whenever a

defendant’s capacity to proceed is in question and to enter findings supporting its

determination. N.C.G.S. § 15A-1002(b1) (2023). Although the statute does not

explicitly state that an incompetency adjudication remains effective until vacated,

our appellate decisions compel that conclusion. In McRae, the defendant had been

found incompetent in several prior hearings and later deemed competent for a limited

-5- STATE V. COOKE

period before a mistrial. When the trial court retried him without a new competency

hearing, this Court held that the omission violated due process and remanded for a

retrospective determination of competency. 139 N.C. App. at 389–91. That holding

presumes that a prior judicial finding of incompetence continues in effect until the

court enters a subsequent finding of restored competency.

The State argues that defendant waived any further inquiry by failing to

request a new hearing or object before trial. But North Carolina law distinguishes

between the statutory right to a competency hearing—which may be waived—and

the constitutional right not to be tried while incompetent—which may not. State v.

Wilkins, 386 N.C. 923, 930–31 (2024). A defendant forfeits the statutory claim under

§ 15A-1002 by failing to raise it “in apt time,” id., but the constitutional protection

arises directly from due process and cannot be lost through silence or consent, Pate,

383 U.S. at 384; State v. Sides, 376 N.C. 449, 457–58 (2020) (holding that even if the

defendant failed to preserve her statutory right, she retained a constitutional due

process right to a hearing). Consistent with these principles, McRae held that

“defendant’s failure to request a hearing or object . . . does not bar him from seeking

relief on appeal.” 139 N.C. App. at 391. That rule reflects the trial court’s

independent constitutional duty to act sua sponte whenever “substantial evidence . .

. indicat[es] that the accused may be mentally incompetent.” State v. Young, 291 N.C.

562, 568 (1977). When a defendant remains under an unvacated order of

incompetence, such evidence exists as a matter of law, and the court’s duty to conduct

-6- STATE V. COOKE

a competency hearing is automatically triggered.

Accordingly, although defendant may have forfeited any statutory claim, he

did not waive appellate review of his constitutional challenge. We recognize that

defendant did not object below and that postconviction competency claims can appear

to invite a “second bite at the apple.” But where, as here, a prior adjudication of

incompetence remains unvacated and no subsequent judicial finding of competency

was entered, the trial itself proceeded without the prerequisite assurance of due

process. The question is therefore not whether defendant should receive another

opportunity to litigate an issue he abandoned, but whether he was ever afforded a

constitutionally valid trial in the first instance. By proceeding to trial without

conducting a new competency hearing or entering findings restoring competency, the

trial court failed to discharge its constitutional obligation to ensure defendant’s

capacity to stand trial.

Having determined that the trial court erred by proceeding to trial without

entering a judicial determination that defendant’s competency had been restored, we

next consider the appropriate remedy.

When a trial court fails to ensure a defendant’s competency to proceed, a new

trial is not automatically required if a meaningful retrospective determination of

competency remains possible. McRae, 139 N.C. App. at 391–92. Such a

determination, however, is permissible only where the trial court can reliably assess

the defendant’s competency at the time of trial based on contemporaneous evidence

-7- STATE V. COOKE

and prior judicial findings. Id.

This case does not permit such a retrospective determination. The trial court’s

last operative order, entered on 12 June 2023, adjudicated defendant incompetent to

proceed. Although a subsequent forensic evaluation dated 11 March 2024 opined that

defendant was competent, the trial court never adopted that evaluation or entered

findings restoring competency. Defendant’s trial did not commence until 10

December 2024, approximately nine months later.

Under these circumstances, any retrospective determination would necessarily

rely on stale evidence or contradict the trial court’s last judicial finding. Given the

absence of a contemporaneous competency determination and the substantial

passage of time, the record does not permit a meaningful or reliable assessment of

defendant’s competency at the time of trial.

Accordingly, defendant’s convictions must be vacated, and this matter

remanded for a new trial upon a judicial determination that defendant is competent

to proceed.

IV.

The trial court previously adjudicated defendant incompetent to proceed and

thereafter conducted his trial without holding a new competency hearing or entering

findings restoring competency. Because the court’s duty to ensure a defendant’s

capacity arises from the constitutional guarantee of due process, that obligation could

not be waived by silence or consent. The failure to conduct a new competency hearing

-8- STATE V. COOKE

or enter findings of restored capacity therefore violated defendant’s constitutional

right not to be tried while incompetent. Because the record does not permit a

meaningful retrospective determination of defendant’s competency at the time of

trial, defendant’s convictions are vacated, and this matter is remanded for a new trial

upon a judicial determination that defendant is competent to proceed.

VACATED AND REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL.

Judges CARPENTER and WOOD concur.

-9-