Other courts have come to similar conclusions in juror misconduct cases, see, e.g., Thomas, 463 F.2d 1061 (two-year delay on claim that prejudicial newspaper article was in jury room and used by some jurors to persuade others); United States v. Rhodes, 556 F.2d 599 (1st Cir. 1977) (unspecified, lengthy delay on reporter's allegation that he saw a juror with a newspaper and was told by several others that the jury had discussed publicity surrounding defendant), as well as in other contexts. See, e.g., United States v. Ives, 574 F.2d 1002 (9th Cir. 1978) (six-year delay in determination of defendant's competency to stand trial); State v. Rodriguez, 27 Ariz. App. 689, 558 P.2d 717 (1976) (three-year delay in competency hearing); United States v. David, 511 F.2d 355 (D.C. Cir. 1975) (two-year delay in determination of whether jury trial waiver was knowing and voluntary); Mares v. United States, 383 F.2d 805 (10th Cir. 1967) (eleven-month delay involving hearing on potential prejudicial effect of trial publicity). The contrary view, that delay should not preclude a hearing where jurors are available, is not without support.

We recognize that Rule 16 as it pertains to the granting of delayed appeals in criminal cases has been superseded by Criminal Rule 32 which delegates such authority to the superior court. See State v. Rodriquez, 27 Ariz. App. 689, 558 P.2d 717 (1976). Rule 16, however, has not been abrogated and thus still governs juvenile delayed appeals.

Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. J-73355, 110 Ariz. 207, 516 P.2d 580 (1973). Rule 16 has been superseded by Ariz.R.Crim.P. 32, delegating the authority to grant a delayed appeal to the superior court, see State v. Rodriquez, 27 Ariz. App. 689, 558 P.2d 717 (1976), but Rule 16 still governs juvenile delayed appeals. State v. Berlat, 146 Ariz. 505, 707 P.2d 303 (1985).

Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. J-73355, 110 Ariz. 207, 516 P.2d 580 (1973). Rule 16 has been superceded by Ariz.R.Crim.P. 32, delegating the authority to grant a delayed appeal to the superior court, see State v. Rodriquez, 27 Ariz. App. 689, 558 P.2d 717 (1976), but Rule 16 still governs juvenile delayed appeals. State v. Berlat, 146 Ariz. 505, 707 P.2d 303 (1985).

The Arizona courts have considered, discussed, criticized and applied the Sieling rule, holding that a separate determination of competency to waive constitutional rights is necessary only where sufficient evidence of incompetency exists, State v. Wagner, 114 Ariz. 459, 561 P.2d 1231 (1977), or a real doubt about the defendant's competency appears, State v. Thompson, 113 Ariz. 1, 545 P.2d 925 (1976), or the factual support for a finding of competency is inadequate or conflicting, State v. Robinson, 111 Ariz. 153, 526 P.2d 396 (1974); State v. Decello, 111 Ariz. 46, 523 P.2d 74 (1974). Accord, State v. Williams, 116 Ariz. 458, 569 P.2d 1356 (App. 1977); State v. Rodriquez, 27 Ariz. App. 689, 558 P.2d 717 (1976); State v. Byrd, 22 Ariz. App. 375, 527 P.2d 777 (1974). The trial court may well have concluded from its colloquy with appellant and from no formal issue having been made of the matter by appellant's counsel that no question of his competency existed.

When a competency hearing is held the defendant has a right to be present at the hearing. State v. Blier, 113 Ariz. 501, 557 P.2d 1058 (1976); State v. Rodriquez, 27 Ariz. App. 689, 558 P.2d 717 (1976). In our opinion the right of a defendant to have his competency determined and his right to be present at the competency hearing are not of equal weight.

Since the ability to make a reasoned choice among alternatives appears to be the key test under Sieling, we believe that the cause must be remanded for a hearing and determination as to whether appellant was in fact competent to waive trial and plead guilty as he did on August 11, 1976. See State v. Robinson, supra; State v. Wagner, supra, and State v. Rodriquez, 27 Ariz. App. 689, 558 P.2d 717 (1976). Cf. State v. Thompson, 113 Ariz. 1, 545 P.2d 925 (1976); State v. Young, 112 Ariz. 361, 542 P.2d 20 (1975); State v. Contreras, supra; and State v. Duggan, 112 Ariz. 157, 540 P.2d 123 (1975).

" Furthermore, we think it is contradictory to argue that an incompetent defendant may knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waive the rights given up by a plea of guilty. It seems obvious that such a fundamental precept of due process as the requirement that a defendant shall only be tried, convicted, or sentenced when he is competent, must be preserved through appellate review of the trial court's ruling on competency, irrespective of the entry of a guilty plea. Cf., State v. Bradley, 102 Ariz. 482, 433 P.2d 273 (1967); Pate v. Robinson, supra; also, State v. Young, 112 Ariz. 361, 542 P.2d 20 (1975); State v. Contreras, 112 Ariz. 358, 542 P.2d 17 (1975); State v. Rodriquez, 27 Ariz. App. 689, 558 P.2d 717 (1976). While not directly dispositive of the question of waiver by entry of a guilty plea, since the issue was not raised, each of these latter cases involved an appeal from a guilty plea in which the trial court's ruling under a Rule 11 motion was discussed at length.