Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01280/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01280-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

, 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

u·FILED 

nited 8{!1t.es Court of AppeaJ ... nth Circuit 8 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

M R2 7198 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

) 

Respondent-Appellee, ) 

) 

V • ) 

) 

GEORGE T. HARLEY, ) 

) 

Petitioner-Appellant. ) 

No. 88-1280 

(D.C. CIV No. 86-1274SC) 

(D. New Mexico) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before HOLLOWAY, Chief Judge, BARRETT and LOGAN, Circuit Judges. 

Petitioner George T. Harley appeals the dismissal of his 

action under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Petitioner alleged, in essence, 

that he was mentally incompetent at the time he entered his guilty 

plea and that his sentence was excessive and disproportionate. 

While we affirm the district court on the latter issue, we hold 

that the district court erred in failing to reach the merits of 

petitioner's incompetency claim and remand for further proceedings 

or findings on that issue. 

Petitioner originally was charged with five counts of 

possession with intent to distribute cocaine. His counsel filed a 

pretrial motion for a hearing on petitioner's competency under 18 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 88-1280 Document: 010110034994 Date Filed: 03/27/1989 Page: 1 
r 

U.S.C. § 4244 (current version at id. § 4241). But before the 

district court ruled on the motion, petitioner's counsel filed a 

''supplemental information" stating that he had conferred with 

petitioner's psychiatrist, who had informed him that petitioner 

"is currently withdrawing from cocaine addiction but that this 

withdrawal would not prevent [petitioner] from understanding the 

nature of the proceedings against him and would not prevent him 

from consulting with counsel." IR. Doc. 54. No other evidence 

was presented, and the district court summarily denied the§ 4244 

motion. Thereafter, pursuant to a plea bargain, petitioner 

pleaded guilty to a single count of the indictment. 

Two years later, petitioner filed the instant§ 2255 motion 

challenging his mental competency to enter the guilty plea and 

asserting, additionally, that his nine-year sentence was excessive 

and disproportionate. The challenge to competency was supported, 

inter alia, by an affidavit of petitioner's original psychiatrist 

suggesting that his original opinion had been wrong and the 

affidavits of two other psychiatrists. A federal magistrate held 

a hearing, the transcript of which was not designated as part of 

the appellate record. The magistrate's order, adopted by the 

district court, recommended a denial of relief. The magistrate 

did not reach the merits of the mental incompetency claim, stating 

instead that the issue "having been raised, evidence proffered to 

the court an [sic] an express finding made on the issue, the 

matter cannot now be raised by a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255." 

IR. Doc. 78 at 3. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 88-1280 Document: 010110034994 Date Filed: 03/27/1989 Page: 2 
The court erred in failing to address the merits on the 

incompetency claim after the§ 2255 hearing. The rule in this 

circuit is that a defendant, who has never had an adversarial 

hearing under§ 4244 and who subsequently raises the issue of his 

mental incompetency at the time of trial by filing a§ 2255 motion 

to vacate, accompanied by substantial supporting evidence, is 

entitled to an evidentiary hearing and a ruling on the issue. 

See, ~, Kienlen v. United States, 379 F.2d 20, 29 (10th Cir. 

1967). 

Although a§ 4244 motion was made pretrial, no report or 

evidentiary hearing was ordered. Even a finding of competency 

based "on a report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4244 does not supplant 

such a hearing since '[t)he appellant is entitled to an 

opportunity to cross examine those doctors and to present evidence 

of his own as to his mental condition.'" Eskridge v. United 

States, 443 F.2d 440, 442 (10th Cir. 1971) (quoting Butler v. 

United States, 361 F.2d 869, 870 (10th Cir. 1966)). 

Here, the district court judge acted properly in denying the 

§ 4244 motion based on the information presented to him. But 

because no examination or hearing under§ 4244 was held, the 

district court's denial of the§ 4244 motion for a competency 

determination is not res judicata of the issue, and petitioner's 

mental state at the time he entered the guilty plea is a proper 

subject of a§ 2255 motion. See United States v. Crews, 781 F.2d 

826, 833 (10th Cir. 1986) ("when no competency hearing [under 18 

U.S.C. § 4244] was held, there is no res judicata effect"). 

-3-

Appellate Case: 88-1280 Document: 010110034994 Date Filed: 03/27/1989 Page: 3 
Petitioner made a substantial showing that he might have been 

incompetent at the time his guilty plea was entered. The 

magistrate apparently thought so also because he held a hearing in 

response to the petition. 1 Having made a substantial enough 

showing to warrant a hearing, petitioner was entitled to a 

decision on the merits, which he erroneously was denied. 

We note that because of the difficulty of a retroactive 

competency determination, the Supreme Court has ordered new trials 

when a substantial showing of incompetency has been made and a 

significant time has elapsed between the denial of the§ 4244 

motion and a determination that the denial was in error. See 

Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 183 (1975); Pate v. Robinson, 383 

U.S. 375, 387 (1966); Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 403 

(1960). In those cases, however, the district court erred in 

denying a pretrial competency hearing. Here, the district court 

that passed on the original§ 4244 motion acted properly based 

upon the representations of counsel and the information before it 

at the time. In such a case, we have said "the onus is on the 

complaining petitioner to expeditiously get his claim before the 

proper tribunal for a hearing,'' and "failing in that regard, he 

cannot await the passage of time and thereby gain a new trial." 

Crail v. United States, 430 F.2d 459, 462 (10th Cir. 1970). 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of New Mexico dismissing petitioner's action under 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 is REVERSED and the district court is ordered to 

1 The order granting the hearing before the magistrate is not 

part of the appellate record. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 88-1280 Document: 010110034994 Date Filed: 03/27/1989 Page: 4 
determine on the merits petitioner's competency at the time of his 

guilty plea. Whether, because of the passage of time, a new 

hearing should be held is left to the district court's discretion. 

Subject to a resolution of the competency issue against 

petitioner, we AFFIRM the district court's judgment on the 

sentencing issue substantially for the reasons set forth in the 

district court's August 11, 1987, Ruling on Objections and Order 

of Dismissal and the magistrate's Report and Recommendation of 

July 1, 1987, which the court adopted. 

-5-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 88-1280 Document: 010110034994 Date Filed: 03/27/1989 Page: 5