NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

OPINION

LAMBERT, Judge.

Christy Robertson appeals from a Crittenden Circuit Court order revoking her pretrial diversion. She argues that, based on her behavior at the revocation hearing, the trial court should have ordered a competency hearing or evaluation. Having reviewed the record and applicable law, we affirm.

Robertson entered a plea of guilty to one charge of first-degree possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine). She was placed on pretrial diversion for a period of three years. This disposition was in accordance with her plea agreement and with a motion signed by all the parties. The conditions of pretrial diversion included no violations of the Penal Code or the Controlled Substances Act, and that she would remain drug and alcohol free and be subject to random testing.

About two years later, the Commonwealth moved to revoke diversion. The trial court scheduled a revocation hearing, at which Robertson was in attendance. The only witness was Robertson's probation officer, who testified that Robertson was abusing her prescribed medications, had medications in her possession for which she did not have a prescription, and was found to have methamphetamine in her system when she was tested at the hospital. Following his testimony, the trial court found that Robertson had violated the terms of her diversion agreement, and subsequently sentenced her to three years' imprisonment in accordance with the terms of her guilty plea agreement. This appeal followed.

Robertson argues that her behavior at the revocation hearing indicated that she was not competent to participate in the proceedings, and that the trial court should have ordered a competency hearing or evaluation before continuing with the hearing.

Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 8.06 provides that

Although there is no published case directly on point, the Commonwealth has conceded, in reliance on an unpublished opinion of this Court, that a defendant is required to be competent at revocation proceedings. See Kelly v. Commonwealth, 2007 WL 1794904 (2006-CA-000323-MR) (Ky. App. June 22, 2007). No published opinion expressly states that a probationer is entitled to a competency hearing prior to revocation, however, and it is well-established that because revocation proceedings are not part of the original criminal prosecution, they are more informal and require less proof than a criminal trial. Hunt v. Commonwealth, 326 S.W.3d 437, 439 (Ky. 2010). Moreover, as with parole, there is no constitutional right to pretrial diversion; it "is simply a privilege and the denial of such has no constitutional implications." Land v. Commonwealth, 986 S.W.2d 440, 442 (Ky. 1999).

Because her attorney did not raise the competency issue before the trial court, Robertson asks us to review it for palpable error under RCr 10.26 and Kentucky Rules of Evidence (KRE) 103. It is not clear, however, if such a motion was necessary to preserve the issue for review. In trial or guilty plea proceedings, if reasonable grounds to hold a competency hearing are "so obvious that the trial court cannot fail to be aware of them, . . . a motion for a hearing on mental capacity is not required." Gabbard v. Commonwealth, 887 S.W.2d 547, 552 (Ky. 1994) (internal citations omitted, emphasis in original).

When Robertson was brought into the courtroom before the revocation hearing, she claims that she was "out of sorts." She started making various remarks that are inaudible on the recording of the hearing. The trial court, which was hearing other motions, eventually told her that "I'm not buying this act, so you can be quiet." Robertson continued to be restless. She was told by court personnel to "shut up" and "sit down." She was eventually tasered and carried from the courtroom into the holdover cell. About twenty minutes later, she was brought back into the courtroom for her hearing. She approached the bench with her attorney. She stared fixedly at her probation officer as he testified, and she had to be physically restrained by a jail employee during the course of the hearing. At one point in the hearing, she began repeating the phrase "ten days" after defense counsel asked how long the probation officer had been supervising her. It appears that "ten days" may have been a reference to an earlier question about the length of time she had been held in jail prior to the hearing. The Commonwealth objected to Robertson's interruptions. The trial court admonished Robertson, stating, "Ma'am, you need to be quiet." Robertson started repeating "no" when she was removed from the courtroom at the conclusion of the hearing.

When we view the hearing as a whole, we cannot say the trial court erred in not ordering a competency evaluation. "In Kentucky, the standard of competency is whether the defendant has a substantial capacity to comprehend the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him and to participate rationally in his defense." Alley v. Commonwealth, 160 S.W.3d 736, 739 (Ky. 2005), citing Commonwealth v. Strickland, 375 S.W.2d 701 (Ky. 1964). Although Robertson's behavior was disruptive and she appeared to be very upset, there is no indication that she did not understand the significance of the proceedings or the testimony of her probation officer. There was no prior history of mental instability that would have alerted the court to a possible problem with competency; she herself admits that her behavior at all other times before the court was entirely appropriate. Finally, we note that the evidence that Robertson had violated the terms of her probation was overwhelming.

For the foregoing reasons, the order revoking pretrial diversion is affirmed.

ALL CONCUR.