A jury found Jose Mario Villegas guilty of entering an automobile. Villegas appeals, alleging the trial court erred in 1 allowing the state to introduce a prior first offender sentence in aggravation, 2 denying his motion to appoint a psychiatrist, and 3 denying his motion for new trial on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel. We find no error and affirm Villegas’ conviction. 1. Villegas contends the trial court improperly considered his prior first offender plea for entering an automobile in sentencing him in this case. We disagree. Villegas is correct in asserting that a first offender who successfully completes his probation period shall not be considered to have a criminal conviction and thus his record as a first offender cannot be used for purposes of sentencing him as a recidivist.1 However, the Supreme Court has held that consideration of a defendant’s first offender record in aggravation of sentence is different because evidence in aggravation is not limited to convictions, and reliable information tending to show a defendant’s general bad character is admissible in aggravation.2 Here, the record is clear that Villegas was not sentenced as a recidivist. Villegas’ first offender plea and sentence were properly admissible at the sentencing hearing.3 Moreover, even if the first offender plea was not admissible, we find no harmful error requiring reversal since the trial judge specifically noted on the record that he did not consider the prior first offender plea in this case.4
2. Villegas argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for the appointment of a psychiatrist. It is well-established that if the court observes facts which raise doubt as to the sanity of the accused, or if such facts are brought to the court’s attention by counsel, the question of the defendant’s sanity should be settled before further steps are taken in the case.5 Factors to be considered in determining whether the defendant is competent include reports of the defendant’s irrational behavior, the defendant’s demeanor at trial, or expert medical opinions regarding the defendant’s competency.6 No information of this nature was present in this case.
