addressed the court at sentencing. Ante, at 1295. Kemp now argues that the trial judge erred in not ordering, sua sponte, a competency hearing under Rule 11.1, Ariz.R.Crim.P. There was no abuse of discretion here. Kemp’s statement does not cast doubt on his ability to understand the nature of the proceedings. See Rule 11.3, Ariz.R.Crim.P. It does not indicate that he lacked the ability to assist in his defense. If anything, his statement says much about the absence of mitigation here and the propriety of the sentence. Because there were no grounds to conduct a competency hearing, the trial judge did not err in failing to order one sua sponte. IV. DISPOSITION We reviewed the record for fundamental error and found none before we decided State v. Smith, 184 Ariz. 456, 910 P.2d 1 (1996) (<HOLDING>). For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Kemp’s
holding that the act is not retroactive holding that the repeal of ars  134035 is procedural and not substantive and therefore fully retroactive holding that the act is retroactive holding that standard of review is a matter of procedural rather than substantive law holding that new rules of criminal procedural are generally not retroactive