Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-02076/USCOURTS-ca10-92-02076-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joel Bennett
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FIL1~D 

United States Co~rt <?f Appealf 'fenth C1ret11t 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

MAY 2 1 '1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee 

v . 

JOEL BENNETT, 

Defendant-Appellant . 

No. 92-2076 

(D.C. No. CR-91-0448-JP) 

(D.N.M.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY and TACHA, Circuit Judges, and KANE,** Senior 

District Judge. 

Joel Bennett appeals his conviction following a jury trial 

for threatening to kill a United States District Court judge in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c). On appeal, Bennett argues that 

the district court erroneously failed to (1) order a second 

competency examination, (2) hold an evidentiary hearing, and (3) 

grant a one-week continuance. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm. 

We review the district court's decision not to order a second 

competency examination for abuse of discretion. See United States 

v. Prince, 938 F.2d 1092, 1095 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S . 

* 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. 

** The Honorable John L. Kane, Jr., Senior District Judge, 

United States District Court for the District of Colorado, sitting 

by designation. 

-1-

Appellate Case: 92-2076 Document: 010110115162 Date Filed: 05/21/1993 Page: 1 
Ct. 427 (1991). In evaluating a defendant's competence to stand 

trial, the court must determine whether the defendant "has 

sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a 

reasonable degree of rational understanding and whether he has 

a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings 

against him." Id. at 1094 (internal quotation omitted). 

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its 

discretion. The court granted an earlier motion to determine 

competence and ordered a psychiatric evaluation. The court then 

held an evidentiary hearing and concluded that Bennett was 

competent to stand trial. Neither Bennett nor his counsel raised 

the competence issue again and there is no record evidence to 

indicate that he became incompetent following the original 

examination. See id. at 1095. 

Bennett next alleges that he suffered from sleep deprivation 

while he was held in custody prior to and during trial. He argues 

that the district court should have held an evidentiary hearing to 

evaluate this allegation and should have granted his motion for a 

one-week continuance so that he could get "some rest prior to 

trial." Bennett never requested an evidentiary hearing and, after 

reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not 

abuse its discretion by failing to hold one. See United States v. 

Gines, 964 F.2d 972, 977 (10th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S. 

Ct. 1023 _(1993). 

' We also review the court's denial of Bennett's continuance 

motion for abuse of discretion and will reverse only if the denial 

was "arbitrary or unreasonable and materially prejudiced the 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-2076 Document: 010110115162 Date Filed: 05/21/1993 Page: 2 
• • 

appellant." United States v. West, 828 F.2d 1468, 1469 (10th Cir. 

1987). The government opposed the motion, arguing that the 

inconvenience to out-of-state witnesses, the impaneled jury, and 

the court outweighed any need and prejudice asserted by Bennett. 

Bennett's motion, which was heard the day trial began, indicated 

that Bennett had been relocated within the jail and given a new 

mattress four days before trial. It further represented that 

Bennett "has finally had a little bit of sleep," but stated that 

he still "requires some rest prior to trial." Bennett also 

contends that he did not think he could testify properly because 

of his alleged sleep deprivation and therefore decided not to 

testify on his own behalf. Under the circumstances, we hold that 

the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the 

motion. 

Finally, we conclude that there is no reason to hold this 

appeal in abeyance because there are no motions for new trial 

pending before the district court. 

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-2076 Document: 010110115162 Date Filed: 05/21/1993 Page: 3