Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-31191/USCOURTS-ca5-14-31191-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Thomas O. Blake
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-31191

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

THOMAS O. BLAKE,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:09-CR-34

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Thomas O. Blake appeals from the revocation of his supervised release. 

He contests the revocation proceedings at which he was found to have violated 

multiple conditions of his supervised release and was sentenced to 10 months 

of imprisonment and no additional term of supervised release.

Blake contends that the district court erred by not sua sponte ordering a 

competency hearing, which was merited in light of his history of mental health 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 10, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 14-31191 Document: 00513073714 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/10/2015
No. 14-31191

2

issues, his prior adjudication of incompetence, his irrational behavior, and his 

conduct during the revocation proceedings. He further contends that his trial 

counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to investigate his competency 

and seeking a mental health evaluation. The Government concedes that the 

district court erred by not holding a competency hearing and agrees that the 

judgment should be vacated and the case remanded for a competency hearing. 

We review for abuse of discretion whether the district court erred in not sua 

sponte holding a competency hearing. See United States v. Davis, 61 F.3d 291, 

303 (5th Cir. 1995). 

The record contains evidence that would have given the district court 

reasonable cause to believe that Blake might be unable to meet the standard 

of competence to proceed with the revocation proceeding. See United States v. 

Ruston, 565 F.3d 892, 904 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Williams, 819 F.2d 

605, 607 (5th Cir. 1988); 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a). There were medical opinions that 

supported the possibility that Blake, who was previously found incompetent in 

the criminal proceeding, suffered from a mental defect or illness that might

render him incompetent. While Blake ultimately was found competent, there 

was evidence that his mental health had to be monitored to insure that it did 

not impair his ability to make future decisions or assist counsel. Also, concerns 

remained about Blake’s mental health after his release from prison, during 

which his condition possibly deteriorated. After Blake previously violated his 

supervised release terms, the district court imposed further conditions that 

required him to participate actively in mental health treatment and take

prescribed psychotropic medication; he did not comply with these terms and, 

during his period of noncompliance, appeared to act erratically. He also acted

inconsistently at the instant revocation hearing, and the district court, in light 

of its apparent concern about Blake’s mental health, recommended that he be 

Case: 14-31191 Document: 00513073714 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/10/2015
No. 14-31191

3

housed in a psychiatric facility where he could receive proper treatment for his 

“condition.” Blake presently is housed in Federal Medical Center Devins.

Thus, the record seemingly contains evidence that would have raised a 

reasonable doubt as to whether Blake was competent to proceed. See Williams, 

819 F.2d at 607; § 4241(a). Accordingly, the district court abused its discretion 

in not sua sponte conducting a competency hearing. See Davis, 61 F.3d at 303. 

The district court’s judgment is vacated, and this case remanded to the district 

court to determine whether a competency hearing should be conducted and, if 

so, whether Blake is competent to proceed. See United States v. Ruston, 565 

F.3d 892, 904 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Hutson, 821 F.2d 1015, 1018 

(5th Cir. 1987). Given our vacatur of Blake’s judgment, we do not address his 

assertion of ineffective assistance of counsel. 

JUDGMENT VACATED; CASE REMANDED. 

Case: 14-31191 Document: 00513073714 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/10/2015