and assist in the preparation of his defense.” It is well settled that a defendant does not have an absolute right to a competency hearing where the examining doctors have reported that he is competent to stand trial. Clifford v. State, 457 N.E.2d 536, 540 (Ind.1984). Our statute and due process considerations require that a hearing take place only if the evidence before the court raises a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s competency. Id. Here, Wheeler himself did not file a motion to challenge competency and there were written findings by a doctor that Wheeler was competent. We cannot say that the trial court erred in concluding that there was no reasonable doubt as to competency and in failing to hold a hearing-on competency. Woods v. State, 547 N.E.2d 772, 788 (Ind.1989) (<HOLDING>), abrogated on other grounds by Richardson v.
holding that where no factual dispute is raised no hearing is required holding that due process guarantees were not violated where a defendant was excluded from a witness competency hearing and noting that the hearing did not concern the witnesses substantive testimony holding that expert reports were not required to mention the defendant hospital because reports were based upon the actions of hospital physicians holding no evidentiary hearing was required where the affidavits of the defendant and his wife were directly contradicted by the defendants sworn testimony during the plea hearing holding that no hearing was required where there were written reports supporting defendants competency