The opinion
PARKS, Presiding Judge,
specially concurring:
While I concur with the majority, I would also vote to reverse due to the trial court’s failure to hold a post-examination competency hearing. The record reveals that upon defendant’s application, the court determined there was doubt as to the defendant’s competency to stand trial. The court ordered a psychiatric examination in accordance with the procedure specified in 22 O.S.1981, § 1175.1 — 1175.8. However, there is no evidence in the present record that the court then held a post-examination competency hearing as required by 22 O.S. 1981 , § 1175.4.
Once the examination has been completed, a “hearing on the competency of the person shall be held.” Title 22 O.S.1981, § 1175.4(A) (emphasis added). The statutory language clearly provides that a post-examination hearing is mandatory in every case in which a competency examination is conducted. See Scott v. State, 730 P.2d 7, 9 (Okl.Cr.1986); Kelly v. State, 735 P.2d 566, 567 (Okl.Cr.1987). Accordingly, failure to hold a post-examination competency hearing dictates reversal as well.