325, 327 (D.C.1984) (citations omitted). A. Adequacy of the Rule 11 Inquiry Appellant maintains the trial court conducted an inadequate Rule 11 inquiry because the court did not know of appellant’s mental retardation or functional illiteracy, and did not fully address the influence of medication on appellant, and thus failed to determine adequately whether he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his constitutional rights. See United States v. Masthers, 176 U.S.App. D.C. 242, 249-50, 539 F.2d 721, 728-29 (1976) (noting that “the standard Rule 11 colloquy may prove an inadequate measure of the validity of a plea proffered by a defendant of questionable mental competence”), overruled on other grounds by Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 113 S.Ct. 2680, 125 L.Ed.2d 321 (1993) (<HOLDING>). The importance of a Rule 11 inquiry is well
holding that the standard for determining competency to plead guilty is whether the defendant has a rational understanding of the proceedings holding competency standard for pleading guilty or waiving right to counsel is same as competency standard for standing trial and disapproving contrary holding of masthers recognizing that a defense attorneys opinion on the clients competency or incompetency is an important but not dispositive factor for trial court to consider in its competency determination holding that competency standard for stand ing trial is same as standard for determining competency to waive right to counsel recognizing that the federal pleading standard is a less stringent standard than the delaware pleading standard