Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02773/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02773-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Craig O. Copley
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2773

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Western District of Missouri. 

Craig O. Copley, *

*

Appellant. * [UNPUBLISHED] 

___________

Submitted: March 1, 2007

Filed: March 19, 2007

___________

Before COLLOTON, BRIGHT, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Craig Copley appeals an order of the district court finding that he is suffering

from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to assist properly

in his defense, and committing him to the custody of the Attorney General pursuant

to 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d). By order dated January 19, 2007, while retaining jurisdiction

over the appeal, we remanded the case to the district court for the limited purpose of

taking testimony by videoconference from a forensic psychologist, Dr. Christine

Scronce, who had examined Copley. The district court convened a hearing and

received the testimony. During the hearing, when Dr. Scronce gave her opinion that

Copley suffered from a mental illness, Copley became verbally abusive of both Dr.

Appellate Case: 06-2773 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/19/2007 Entry ID: 3289463
1

Copley has tendered a pro se document dated February 19, 2007, but it is

Eighth Circuit policy that we do not consider pro se filings when a party is represented

by counsel. United States v. Martin, 59 F.3d 767, 768 n.2 (8th Cir. 1995). We see

nothing in that document, moreover, that would change our view concerning the

district court’s finding on competency.

-2-

Scronce and the court, and demanded to leave the proceedings. The court permitted

Copley to leave the courtroom and arranged for him to listen to the remainder of the

hearing from a holding cell, while Copley’s counsel remained in the courtroom and

cross-examined Dr. Scronce.

On February 21, 2007, the district court filed a supplemental order, finding by

a preponderance of the evidence that Copley 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. § 4241(d). Having carefully reviewed the

record, we conclude that the district court’s finding is not clearly erroneous, see

United States v. Santos, 131 F.3d 16, 20 (1st Cir. 1997) (standard of review), and we

therefore affirm its order of June 22, 2006, as supplemented by the order of February

21, 2007. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.1

 ______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2773 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/19/2007 Entry ID: 3289463