Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_14-cr-01935/USCOURTS-azd-4_14-cr-01935-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Venancio Garcia-Gamez
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Venancio Garcia-Gamez, 

Defendant.

No. CR-14-01935-001-TUC-JGZ

ORDER 

On March 14, 2016, Magistrate Judge Bernardo P. Velasco issued a Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R”) in which he recommended that this Court find Defendant 

Venancio Garcia-Gamez not competent to proceed to trial and dismiss this case. (Doc. 

36.) The government filed an Objection to the R&R on March 24, 2016 and Defendant 

filed a response to the Objection on April 4, 2016. (Docs. 39, 42.) For the reasons stated 

herein, the Court will adopt the R&R. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

 The Court reviews de novo the objected-to portions of the R&R. 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The Court reviews for clear error the unobjected-to 

portions of the R&R. Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999); 

see also Conley v. Crabtree, 14 F.Supp.2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998). If the Court rejects 

the credibility findings of the magistrate judge, a de novo hearing is required. United 

States v. Ridgway, 300 F.3d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 2002). 

// 

Case 4:14-cr-01935-JGZ-BPV Document 43 Filed 04/29/16 Page 1 of 5
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

 The factual background contained in Magistrate Velasco’s R&R (Doc. 36) is 

adopted by reference herein. To the extent the government’s Objection alleges erroneous 

factual findings by the Magistrate Judge, those objections are addressed below. 

ANALYSIS 

The Magistrate Judge concluded that Defendant is not competent to stand trial 

based on his review of three competency evaluations, an evidentiary hearing and his 

observation of Defendant’s demeanor at the hearing. The Magistrate Judge concluded 

that, although Defendant might understand that a guilty plea is preferable to a guilty 

verdict at trial, he is not competent to stand trial. The government objects to the 

Magistrate’s findings, arguing that the finding that Defendant would be competent to 

enter a guilty plea cannot be parsed from the ultimate question of competency and, in 

fact, supports the conclusion that Defendant is competent to stand trial. According to the 

government, the evaluations demonstrate that Defendant can engage in reasoned 

decision-making regarding his defense, has made a rational decision to avoid trial, and is 

therefore competent. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that 

Defendant is not competent to stand trial. 

 In considering whether a defendant is competent to stand trial, the Court must 

decide whether, based on a preponderance of the evidence, the defendant is presently 

suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the 

extent that he is unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings 

against him or to assist properly in his defense. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 4241(d). Here, the 

evidence presented to the Magistrate Judge demonstrates that Defendant does not 

understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him. Gillespie 

Wadsworth, Psy. D., the forensic psychologist at FMC-Butner, opined that Defendant had 

been restored to competency and that Defendant demonstrated a factual knowledge about 

his case and pending legal charges. According to Dr. Wadsworth, Defendant possesses a 

rational understanding of the proceedings against him and appreciates his situation in 

Case 4:14-cr-01935-JGZ-BPV Document 43 Filed 04/29/16 Page 2 of 5
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

reference to those proceedings. However, during repeated interviews regarding 

Defendant’s knowledge of relevant court proceedings, Defendant indicated he was being 

charged with a misdemeanor for being in the country illegally and would serve 2 years in 

Arizona if convicted. He did not understand the role of the jury and repeatedly indicated 

he just wanted to go back to Mexico. In his court-ordered evaluation by clinical 

psychologist Marisa Menchola, Ph.D., Defendant again stated that he believed his 

charged offense to be minor, with a possible sentence of 2 years. He was not able to 

accurately explain a guilty plea, or the consequences of pleading guilty. Defendant 

described a not-guilty plea as “they were not conscious of the moment when things 

happened ... they have no precision, it was a mistake not knowing that it was a mistake 

... I have rights, that I should have the right to be absolved.” At the competency hearing, 

Dr. Wadsworth testified that Defendant did not demonstrate an understanding of his trial 

rights and could not describe in his own words the consequences of a not-guilty plea. 

(TR 2/17/16, pgs. 17-18.) Dr. Menchola testified that Defendant believed his defense 

counsel would determine his sentence if he pled guilty, that Defendant was not able to 

articulate the rights he would give up if he took a plea, and that Defendant did not 

understand what happens at a trial. (Id., pg. 31.) 

 The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the evidence suggesting 

Defendant may understand the consequences of a guilty plea does not compel the 

conclusion that Defendant understands the nature and consequences of the proceedings 

against him. First, that evidence is inconsistent: although Defendant was able to describe 

a guilty plea to Dr. Menchola as an admission of guilt followed by sentencing, he also 

incorrectly stated that he could plead “innocent,” that his sentence would be determined 

in relation to other defendants’ sentences, and that he could be sentenced to “freedom.” 

(Doc. 28, pg. 3.) Defendant also reported to Dr. Menchola that both a plea deal and a 

trial could result in “less time.” (Id.) Second, 18 U.S.C.A. § 4241(d) requires a finding 

that Defendant understand the consequences of the proceedings against him. Defendant 

must be competent as to all phases of his proceedings, not just the option to plead guilty. 

Case 4:14-cr-01935-JGZ-BPV Document 43 Filed 04/29/16 Page 3 of 5
- 4 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

See Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 398 (1993) (the competency standard for pleading 

guilty or waiving the right to counsel is the same as the competency standard for standing 

trial). A guilty plea is only one possible outcome of Defendant’s proceedings. While 

Defendant has demonstrated a limited understanding that he could be sentenced faster if 

he pled guilty (TR 2/17/16, pg. 47), he does not appear to understand a myriad of other 

consequences at stake in these proceedings: he is not aware of the rights he gives up if he 

takes a guilty plea, he does not understand the role of the jury, he does not understand 

that a judge would sentence him, and he does not understand the length of sentence he 

could serve. 

 In addition, substantial evidence in the record indicates that Defendant is not able 

to assist in his defense. According to Dr. Wadsworth, Defendant can maintain proper 

courtroom behavior and can assist his attorney in a reasonable and rational manner. 

However, Dr. Wadsworth’s report repeatedly refers to Defendant’s inability or refusal to 

participate in facility activities, interviews, tests or weekly competency restoration group 

sessions. During repeated interviews regarding Defendant’s knowledge of relevant court 

proceedings, Defendant did not appear engaged and was often observed closing his eyes, 

yawning or looking at activity on the unit. He was disinterested in plea options and did 

not understand his role in the proceedings. He did not know his attorney’s last name and 

did not know how he could help his attorney. Dr. Menchola’s evaluation indicates that 

Defendant’s responses to her questions were typically one-word answers, answers that 

did not make sense, or responses that were irrelevant. Defendant could not remember his 

attorney’s name during his evaluation with Dr. Menchola, and described his attorney as 

someone who would “work for him” and “see how soon I can get out.” At the February 

17, 2016 competency hearing, the Magistrate Judge observed that Defendant was 

“seemingly unaware of the hearing going on about him. Although he sat quietly during 

the hearing, he engaged in a physical behavior that demonstrated his lack of awareness of 

the proceedings. He was placing his hands on and off his face as if that were his role in 

the hearing. At no time did he react in any way favorably or unfavorably to what was 

Case 4:14-cr-01935-JGZ-BPV Document 43 Filed 04/29/16 Page 4 of 5
- 5 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

being said about him.” (Doc. 36, pg. 2.) 

CONCLUSION 

 After an independent review of the pleadings, exhibits and transcript, 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 36) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED; 

2. The Court finds the Defendant is not competent to stand trial; 

3. The matter is set for Status Conference on May 3, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. in 

Courtroom 5B, 405 West Congress, Tucson, Arizona before Judge Jennifer G. 

Zipps. 

Dated this 29th day of April, 2016. 

Case 4:14-cr-01935-JGZ-BPV Document 43 Filed 04/29/16 Page 5 of 5