CRONE, J.
Donald first argues that Indiana Code Section 35-36-3-1 [on evaluating competence to stand trial] should apply to probation revocation hearings. . . . By its own terms, Indiana Code Section 35-36-3-1(a) applies only “before the final submission of any criminal case to the court or the jury trying the case.” (Emphasis added.) We find that Donald did not have a statutory right to a competency hearing because he was not standing for trial, but rather was participating in a probation revocation hearing, which is a matter that takes place after the final submission of a criminal case to the trier of fact.
Donald also argues that the trial court denied him due process when it denied his request for a competency evaluation at the probation revocation hearing. Although we do not agree with Donald that Indiana Code Section 35-36-3-1 applies to probation revocation hearings, we do believe that the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution requires that a defendant be competent when participating in a probation revocation hearing.
. . . .
Other jurisdictions have found that due process requires that probationers be competent at probation revocation hearings. . . . .
Other courts have reasoned that the due process rights set forth for probation revocation hearings, “including the opportunity of the defendant to be heard and present witnesses and the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, ‘may be rendered null if the defendant is not competent to understand and to participate in or to assist counsel in participating in the proceedings.’” State v. Chambers, 783 N.E.2d 965, 968 (Ohio Ct. App. 2002) (quoting State v. Qualls, 552 N.E.2d 957, 960 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988)). In addition, other courts have found that defendants are entitled to a competency hearing during a probation revocation proceeding because a probation revocation hearing is similar to a criminal proceeding in that “the defendant’s liberty is at stake, and his ability to assist in his own defense may be determinative of the outcome of the revocation hearing.” Hayes, 343 So. 2d at 673. We agree with these cases and adopt their reasoning. Without competency, the minimal due process rights guaranteed to probationers at probation revocation hearings would be rendered useless.
Here, the trial court’s denial of Donald’s request for a competency evaluation was based on the assumption that Donald did not have standing under Indiana Code Section 35-36-3-1 to request a competency evaluation. Although Donald did not have a right to a competency evaluation under Indiana Code Section 35-36-3-1, he did have a due process right to a competency evaluation prior to his probation revocation hearing if it was warranted. In the trial context, it is within the sound discretion of the trial court whether reasonable grounds exist to order a competency evaluation, and that decision will be reviewed only for an abuse of discretion. Cotton v. State, 753 N.E.2d 589, 591 (Ind. 2001). Here, the trial court did not reach the issue of whether there were reasonable grounds for a competency hearing. Regardless, the trial court was put on notice, given Donald’s attorney’s oral request for the competency evaluation based on the thirty-minute consultation and Donald’s previous medical history, that further inquiry may have been warranted. Moreover, the State acknowledged that Donald was suffering from some kind of condition but was unaware of the details. Since the trial court denied Donald’s request for a competency hearing based on its belief that he did not have standing, the issue of whether or not reasonable grounds existed to order a competency evaluation was never addressed. Donald should be allowed to address that issue. Therefore, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
BAKER, C.J., and DARDEN, J., concur.