Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-04003/USCOURTS-ca10-91-04003-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Raymond Casey
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

"' 

FI LED 

United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

RAYMOND CASEY, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

J L 11991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 91-4003 

(D.C. No. 89-C-704-W) 

(D. Utah) 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Petitioner Raymond Casey appeals the district court's denial 

of his motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 u.s.c. § 2255. 

In 1985, petitioner pleaded guilty to second-degree murder in the 

United States District Court for the District of Utah and was 

sentenced to twenty-five years imprisonment. He did not appeal 

* 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 estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-4003 Document: 010110129492 Date Filed: 07/31/1991 Page: 1 
his conviction, but later filed a§ 2255 motion, alleging that 

(1) his due process rights were violated when the district court 

failed to conduct a competency hearing before accepting his plea; 

and (2) his counsel provided ineffective assistance in connection 

with his guilty plea. The magistrate judge, based on the record 

and memoranda and affidavits submitted, recommended that 

petitioner's motion be denied. The district court affirmed. That 

denial without an evidentiary hearing is the subject of the 

instant appeal. 

A hearing to determine a defendant's competency is required 

only "if information comes to the trial court's attention that 

raises a bona fide doubt about the defendant's competency to stand 

trial." United States v. Newman, 733 F.2d 1395, 1400 (10th Cir. 

1984). A defendant is considered competent "if he has sufficient 

present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable 

degree of rational understanding and has a rational as well as 

factual understanding of the proceedings against him." Id. 

Applying this standard to the instant case, we are convinced that 

petitioner was sufficiently competent to enter a valid guilty 

plea. Defense counsel had a psychiatrist examine petitioner the 

day before his plea. The psychiatrist found him competent to 

stand trial. The record also indicates that petitioner was aware 

of the charges against him, that he was able to consult 

intelligently with his attorneys, and that he understood the 

consequences of his plea. Moreover, the district judge had the 

opportunity to observe petitioner, and through elicitations from 

him confirmed that the plea was knowing and voluntary and was 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-4003 Document: 010110129492 Date Filed: 07/31/1991 Page: 2 
supported by a factual basis. Although petitioner was on pain 

medication as the result of a head injury, he stated and the trial 

court found that it did not impair his reasoning. 1 Under these 

circumstances, the district court did not err in accepting 

petitioner's plea without a competency hearing. 

Petitioner also contends that the district court, in 

considering his § 2255 motion, should have conducted an 

evidentiary hearing to determine his mental state at the time of 

his plea and sentencing hearings. Petitioner argues that he is 

entitled to such a hearing when one of the grounds for relief in a 

§ 2255 motion is mental incompetency at the time of a plea. 

Although we have made general statements to that effect, see 

McDonald v. United States, 341 F.2d 378 (10th Cir. 1965), cert. 

denied, 385 U.S. 936 (1966), that has never been applied 

literally. See Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487, 494-95 

(1962). Section 2255 provides that a hearing is not required if 

"the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively 

show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief. II 28 u.s.c. 

§ 2255. In the instant case, the district court judge was the 

1 The court stated: 

Based our [sic] answers to my questions, having observed 

you, your having signed this Statement in Advance of 

Plea of Guilty, I find that your plea of guilty to 

Second Degree Murder has been made freely and 

voluntarily, that you, in fact, are guilty of that 

crime, that you are competent to have entered the plea. 

Even though you have taken some drugs, it doesn't affect 

your competence or judgment. The plea of guilty is 

accepted and entered. 

Reporter's transcript of plea hearing, January 11, 1985; Brief of 

Appellee, Attachment A at 19-20. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-4003 Document: 010110129492 Date Filed: 07/31/1991 Page: 3 
; 

person before whom the plea was taken and was the person who found 

petitioner competent in the first place. When the§ 2255 motion 

was under consideration he had before him the transcripts from the 

plea and sentencing hearings, defendant's statement in advance of 

his guilty plea, affidavits from defendant's attorneys, and the 

report of the defense's psychiatrist who examined petitioner one 

day before he entered the guilty plea. We agree with the district 

court that it provides evidence conclusive enough of petitioner's 

competency to warrant denial of an evidentiary hearing. 

Finally, petitioner argues that he did not receive effective 

assistance of counsel in connection with his guilty plea; that but 

for his counsel's failure to investigate or present evidence of 

petitioner's incompetence, he would not have pleaded guilty to 

second-degree murder. To prevail on his ineffective assistance of 

counsel claim, petitioner must show that (1) his counsels' 

representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness; 

and (2) there is a reasonable probability that, but for his 

counsels' errors, the result of the plea proceeding would have 

been different. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 

(1984); Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58-59 (1985). 

The record indicates that petitioner's counsel provided 

adequate assistance in connection with his plea. Counsel 

evaluated petitioner's competency through an independent 

psychiatric examination and provided the trial court with 

information regarding petitioner's head injury and use of pain 

medication. The affidavits of counsel also show that they 

investigated the case and believed that a plea of guilty in 

-4-

Appellate Case: 91-4003 Document: 010110129492 Date Filed: 07/31/1991 Page: 4 
exchange for the government's recommendation of twenty-five years 

imprisonment was in petitioner's best interest. Petitioner has 

presented no evidence to show that any further investigation would 

have resulted in any different outcome. 

AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-5-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-4003 Document: 010110129492 Date Filed: 07/31/1991 Page: 5