With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". v. Hanson, 152 Idaho 314, 325, 271 P.3d 712, 723 (2012) (quoting Dunlap v. State, 141 Idaho 50, 59, 106 P.3d 376, 385 (2004)). This Court has previously observed that it had not addressed whether retroactive competency determinations were permissible, but noted that such determinations have been made in other jurisdictions. Hawkins II, 155 Idaho at 73, 305 P.3d at 517. There we stated: [Rjetroactive competency determinations are allowed in many jurisdictions under certain circumstances. See, e.g., Odle v. Woodford, 238 F.3d 1084, 1089 (9th Cir. 2001) (“We have said that retrospective competency hearings may be held when the record contains sufficient information upon which to base a reasonable psychiatric judgment.”); Montana v. Bostwick, 296 Mont. 149, 988 P.2d 765, 772-73 (1999) (<HOLDING>); Traylor v. State, 280 Ga. 400, 627 S.E.2d

A: holding that the erroneous failure to hold a pretrial competency hearing can be cured by a meaningful retrospective hearing
B: holding that once the feasibility of a retrospective hearing is determined requiring a criminal defendant to prove at a retrospective mental competency hearing that he was incompetent when tried earlier does not violate the defendants due process rights
C: holding that defendants waived any challenge to the trial courts failure to hold an evidentiary hearing
D: holding the rule was not applicable in a pretrial venue hearing
A.