Case o' The Week: Defendant trips on "high bar" - Garza and Sua Sponte Competency Referrals
Diabetes
eating the defendant's brain, diagnosed anxiety disorder, and admitted failure to understand the trial proceedings. Competent?
Competent
enough.
United States v. Garza, 2014
WL 2058088 (9th Cir. May 20, 2014), decision available here.
Hon. Richard C. Tallman |
Players: Decision by Judge Tallman, joined by Judges Ikuta and DJ
O’Connell. Hard-fought appeal by ED Cal AFPD Carolyn Wiggin.
Facts: Garza was charged with one count
of receipt or distribution of child porn, and another of possession. Id. at *1. His lawyer hired a
psychologist who prepared a competency report. Id. That psych diagnosed Garza with anxiety, and dementia caused by
uncontrolled diabetes; he concluded that Garza was incompetent. Id. Garza was sent to the BOP for an
eval: Dr. Lisa Hope concluded Garza suffered from anxiety disorder, did not
suffer from dementia, and was competent to go to trial. Id. After Dr. Hope’s report, the competency issue was dropped and
the case went to trial. Id. at *2.
Garza testified, explained that he was mentally disabled, and complained that diabetes
was eating his brain. Id. Garza
denied understanding the proceedings. Id.
Defense counsel did not move to declare Garza incompetent. Id. Garza was convicted – and before imposing twenty years the district court mused that Garza has been “playing
possum” during his testimony. Id.
Issue(s): “[T]he failure to observe
procedures adequate to protect a defendant’s right not to be tried or convicted
while incompetent to stand trial deprives him of his due process right to a
fair trial . . . Sometimes ‘adequate’ means that the district court must sua
sponte consider a defendant’s competency. The question is whether this is one
of those times. Garza says yes. He argues that the district court plainly erred
by failing to sua sponte hold a competency hearing.” Id. at *3.
Held: “There
was no plain error here because no reasonable judge would harbor a genuine
doubt about Garza’s competency; no reasonable judge would harbor a reasonable
doubt about Garza’s competency because there was not substantial evidence;
there was not substantial evidence because Garza’s medical history, his
behavior in and out of trial, and his defense counsel’s statements do not
reveal a defendant incapable of either understanding the nature of the
proceedings against him or assisting in his defense.” Id. at *7 (internal quotations and citation omitted).
Of Note: Judge Tallman briefly discusses an
interesting challenge by Garza: if a defendant is committed for a competency
evaluation under Section 4247, is the defendant then entitled to a competency hearing upon return from the BOP? Id. at *7. Makes sense, and Judge
Talmman concedes that his argument is “not without textual support.” Id. Unfortunately, the answer is, “no:”
“A § 4247 examination does not automatically entitle a defendant to a hearing.”
Id.
How to
Use: The “substantial evidence” standard applies to the issue
of whether a district court erred by not making a competency determination sua
sponte. This standard is not clearly defined and “not easily applied.” Id. at *3. The bulk of the Garza decision discusses this standard
(“the bar is clearly high”), works through test and provides “general
guidelines.” Id. at *3-*5. These “rough
guidelines” are new law, and are worth review if you represent a client with
competency issues (and may be of particular importance for capital habeas work).
For
Further Reading: In three short weeks, the timekeeping
system for every Defender employee will be significantly re-tooled in
preparation for the A.O.’s fall Work Measurement Study. To get ready for this important
June 16 “go live” date, and to get the new federal defenderData task codes, Defender
staff should grab the collection of materials and hit the training links here: http://www.ndcalfpd.org/workload.html
Image
of the Honorable Richard C. Tallman from https://www.law.hawaii.edu/ke-kula-k%C4%81n%C4%81wai/2011/10/14
Image
of the “dData” icon from http://www.justiceworks.com/defenderData.html
Steven
Kalar, Federal Public Defender ND Cal . Website at www.ndcalfpd.org
.
.
Labels: Competency, Mental Health, Section 4247, Tallman
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home