A man convicted of possessing an untraceable gun should have been reexamined for competency and potentially prevented from representing himself after repeatedly making nonsensical legal statements that sounded like what an attorney might say but did not relate at all to the case, a New York state appeals court found.

In a unanimous opinion issued Wednesday, a four-judge panel agreed with Timothy Garcia that although he was found competent by two psychologists in April 2023, with a prognosis described as "guarded," his competency should have been reexamined before the December 2023 verdict in his case.

"The defendant's conduct during the course of the proceedings demonstrated a lack of understanding of the consequences of his actions," the panel said.

In May 2023, Garcia asked the court how he could settle the matter. When the judge suggested that he plead guilty, the defendant replied confusingly, "Is it the custom of this court to dishonor acceptances?"

The Second Judicial Department said the trial court indicated that at this point, "it was still concerned about whether the defendant understood the charges against him."

When Garcia was discussing his self-representation with the court, ensuring his waiver of counsel was voluntary, he mostly "repeated that he was 'not here to testify,'" the appeals court said.

In August 2023, Garcia said he accepted a guilty plea but refused to engage in a plea allocution, again "claiming he was 'not here to testify,' despite the presence of a legal advisor to advise him how to proceed," the appeals court said.

During his trial, Garcia seemed not to understand the consequences of his case and was unable to defend himself, according to the panel. Garcia didn't cross-examine witnesses, and at the end of the trial, he repeated another strange statement, saying, "I'm here by special appearance, not a general appearance."

When asked if he wanted to make any closing summation, he said, "I'm not here to argue."

He then nonsensically said he was "accepting" the county court's offer "and hereby returning it in settlement and closure."

"His bizarre statements indicated that he had no understanding of what was about to unfold," the panel said.

With all of his odd remarks, the appeals court said the trial court should have looked into his competency again.

"The defendant may have been competent in April 2023, and, thereafter, his condition may have deteriorated," the appeals court explained.

Since it would be hard to understand what his actual mental state was in retrospect, the appeals court said it would have to send the case back to the Suffolk County Court for a new competency assessment, and then, a new trial, if Garcia were found competent.

Charles E. Von Schmidt, who represented Garcia, told Law360 that he wasn't surprised with the court's decision. "There was a lot of evidence that Mr. Garcia wasn't capable of representing himself and was a disaster when he did."

"I have seen this with people who are not lawyers, and they pick up words and phrases and pick it up thinking it's sounding legal," Von Schmidt said, though he wasn't sure if that was exactly what Garcia was doing.

"I can see that the things he was saying were not making sense," he said.

Garcia was sentenced to multiple years in prison, his lawyer said, noting that the time he got "was much longer than had been offered to him in a plea bargain."

Still, Von Schmidt was hopeful. "After almost a year, we have got a decision, and it looks like it's going to go somewhere with a little bit more justice," he said.

Representatives for the state did not immediately respond to requests for comments on Thursday.

Justices Betsy Barros, Lara J. Genovesi, Helen Voutsinas and Carl J. Landicino sat on the panel for the New York Supreme Court.

The people are represented by Christopher Turk of the Suffolk County Office of the District Attorney.

Garcia is represented by Charles E. Von Schmidt.

The case is The People of the State of New York v. Timothy Garcia, case number 2024-01742, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department.

--Editing by Dave Trumbore.