PEOPLE OF MI V WASIM HUSAM WADIE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
December 20, 2005
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 255803
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 1998-164107-FC
WASIM WADIE,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Owens, P.J., and Saad and Fort Hood, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of one count of criminal sexual conduct
in the first degree, MCL 750.520b, for which he was sentenced to eight to twenty years in prison.
On appeal, this Court remanded for a nunc pro tunc competency hearing. People v Wadie,
unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued February 25, 2003 (Docket No.
230350). Following the hearing, the trial court determined that defendant had been competent to
stand trial. Defendant again appeals as of right. We affirm. This appeal is being decided
without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
“Findings of fact by the trial court may not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. In the
application of this principle, regard shall be given to the special opportunity of the trial court to
judge the credibility of the witnesses who appeared before it.” MCR 2.613(C). “A finding of
fact is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court is left
with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” In re Forfeiture of $19,250,
209 Mich App 20, 29; 530 NW2d 759 (1995). Issues of law and the trial court’s ultimate
disposition are reviewed de novo. Frericks v Highland Twp, 228 Mich App 575, 583; 579
NW2d 441 (1998); Edwards v Edwards, 192 Mich App 559, 562; 481 NW2d 769 (1992).
“[A] criminal defendant’s mental condition at the time of trial must be such as to assure
that he understands the charges against him and can knowingly assist in his defense.” People v
McSwain, 259 Mich App 654, 692; 676 NW2d 236 (2003). “The conviction of an individual
when legally incompetent violates due process of law.” In re Carey, 241 Mich App 222, 227;
615 NW2d 742 (2000). A defendant is presumed competent to stand trial unless a mental
condition prevents him from understanding the nature and object of the proceedings against him
or assisting in his defense in a rational manner. MCL 330.2020(1). “A defendant is not
considered incompetent to stand trial if he is or has been prescribed psychotropic drugs or other
medication without which he might be incompetent to stand trial.” People v Mette, 243 Mich
-1-
App 318, 331; 621 NW2d 713 (2000). “Evidence substantiating incompetency-in-fact must
establish that there was a violation of rights before a new trial will be ordered.” People v Vokes,
134 Mich App 62, 64; 349 NW2d 819 (1984).
The evidence showed that prior to trial, defendant had been diagnosed with paranoid
schizophrenia for which he was prescribed medication. While there was some dispute whether
that diagnosis was correct, the expert witnesses agreed that at the time of trial defendant had
some sort of mental disorder from which he was recovering, and was symptomatic to some
extent. Defendant’s trial attorney described him as inattentive and unable to discuss the facts of
his defense in detail. Defendant’s behavior was such that defense counsel felt that he could not
testify at trial, and defendant’s expert witness concurred with this conclusion. The witnesses
could not agree if defendant was actually incapable of assisting in his defense due to his mental
disorder or was unwilling to assist in his defense due to other factors such as immaturity, anger
and/or denial. While defendant’s expert stated that defendant’s mental disorder made it less
likely that he was competent, he nonetheless was unable to make a determination that defendant
was in fact incompetent at the time of trial. The prosecutor’s experts, on the other hand, were
able to make a determination and concluded that defendant was competent at the time of trial.
Based on the evidence presented, the trial court did not err in finding defendant competent to
stand trial. Vokes, supra at 64-65.
Affirmed.
/s/ Donald S. Owens
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Karen M. Fort Hood
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
