MESA COUNTY, Colo. (KREX) - A member of a religious cult that was found responsible for the death of two girls had her appeal denied Thursday. According to court documents, Ika Eden appealed the conviction of two counts of child abuse resulting in death, saying she was not competent to stand tri al. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, writing Eden's unusual views were not based on mental illness but rather "extreme religious beliefs." Eden was originally sentenced in June 2021 by Mesa County Judge Gretchen Larson. Eden was part of a small religious group that included adults and children. The two kids who were killed - Makayla Roberts, 10, and Hannah Marshall, 8 - were the biological children of one of the members. In 2017, the group's leader believed the spirits of the two kids were impure and banished the girls to a car on a property in Norwood. The leader forbade members to give the children food or water. Their bodies were later discovered after a neighbor contacted law enforcement. A jury found Eden guilty before she was sentenced to a total of 96 years in the Department of Corrections. But the leadup to the trial saw several twists and turns including Eden eventually representing herself in court. Initially, Eden was determined to not have a mental disability after defense counsel requested a competency evaluation in March 2018. The doctor also decided she was "competent to proceed to trial." But a few months later, writings discovered in her jail cell possibly said otherwise. Eden wrote she was "the first of (Yahweh's) creation" and she was "6,384,964 years old." She also wrote the two girls were "the two Headed dragon" that "in one of their reincarnation(s,) ... had randomly kidnapped eight children for the sole pleasure of watching (them) die of hunger and starvation." And their death was "judgement (sic) that was meted out to their consciousness." Due to these statements, Eden was evaluated again and the doctor found she had a mental illness and that "her writings are delusional."  The doctor concluded Eden was incompetent to proceed to adjudication. Eden was committed to the Colorado Mental Health Institute in Pueblo where she underwent five competency evaluations over 14 months. Eden was deemed incompetent to proceed and diagnosed with Rule/Out Delusion Disorder, meaning the doctor was unable to "rule in or out" whether her beliefs were delusional. Another doctor was brought in for the next competency evaluation. The doctor reported that Eden's psychiatrist had removed the delusional disorder diagnosis. Eden appeared to have a factual and rational understanding of the legal proceedings against her, the doctor said. It was also found that any decision to express her religious convictions to the court was "more likely volitional choices to convey her philosophies, as opposed to an inability to control her behavior." The doctor concluded Eden did not have a mental disability and was competent to proceed to adjudication. However, her defense counsel requested another competency evaluation. The doctor's conclusion differed from the previous evaluation, writing "Because of (Eden's) delusional disorder, she does not think rationally regarding the present legal matter despite her adequate factual knowledge." The court scheduled a restoration hearing where it heard testimony from the doctors. The court also reviewed competency reports submitted by witnesses and records the Colorado Mental Health Institute. The court concluded Edem does not suffer from a diagnosable delusional disorder, citing her psychiatrist as a reason why it came to this decision. "(Eden) does not suffer from a diagnosable delusional disorder, but, rather, that she holds extreme religious beliefs," the court wrote. "... (Her) persistence in applying her beliefs to the facts, in this case, demonstrates her unwillingness, rather than her inability, to hold a rational understanding of the proceedings." The appeals court agreed with this decision. Although Eden says the trial court found her competent due to not having a diagnosable mental disorder, the argument misconstrues the actual findings, the appeals court determined. The trial court weighed the differing expert views and believed Eden's views were "extreme religious beliefs" and not a "delusional disorder." The court decided Eden did not have a mental disorder based on this conclusion and not the lack of any official diagnosis. This isn't the only issue Eden contended. In June 2018, Eden requested to represent herself. This came after her counsel moved to continue the trial beyond the speedy trial date because it had not yet retained a rebuttal expert. Eden said she didn't think it was necessary to wait for an expert witness "to prove (that she) is not guilty of the charges stipulated." The trial court determined Eden was competent to waive her constitutional right to counsel and she was doing so voluntary, knowing and intelligent. However, a second competency evaluation showed she was not competent to waive her right to an attorney Then in May 2021 when it was found she was competent to stand trial, she requested to waive her right to counsel which was approved and the trial proceeded. But as part of the stipulation Eden agreed to have advisory counsel appointed to help her. Since the appeals court found no error in determining Eden was competent to stand trial, the same way conclusion was made for her right to waive counsel. The court asked Eden several questions on why she's choosing to waive her right for counsel. Eden said she felt her "strategy" wasn't being well-received by her counsel. This was consistent with her initial request to proceed pro se in 2018. She said she didn't need counsel since her truth was all she needed. "Because Eden was competent to waive her right to counsel, her waiver of the right to counsel was valid so long as it was voluntary, knowing and intelligent. In light of the trial court’s advisement and its subsequent findings, we agree with the court that Eden’s waiver satisfied these requirements," the appeals court wrote. ...read more read less