assessment is one in which “the trial judge must evaluate all the evidence and evaluate the probative value of each piece of evidence in light of the others.” Chavez v. United States, 656 F.2d 512, 518 (9th Cir. 1981). “‘[Ejvidence of a defendant’s irrational behavior, his demeanor at trial, and any prior medical opinion on competence to stand trial are all relevant in determining whether further inquiry is required,’ and ‘one of these factors standing alone may, in some circumstances, be sufficient,’ ” Maxwell v. Roe, 606 F.3d 561, 568 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Drope, 420 U.S. at 180, 95 S.Ct. 896). Although a suicide attempt can give rise to a bona fide doubt as to competence, it does not necessarily do so. See United States v. Loyola-Dominguez, 125 F.3d 1315, 1318-19 (9th Cir. 1997) (<HOLDING>). We hold that the trial court’s denial of a
holding that a suicide attempt by itself does not automatically require a competency hearing recognizing that not every suicide attempt inevitably creates a doubt concerning the defendants competency holding that the state does not have to prove a defendants competency to stand trial holding that plea colloquy did not refute defendants claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate his competency because defendants competency was never addressed at the plea colloquy 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