Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01210/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01210-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles Swarzentruber
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1210

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Northern

v. * District of Iowa.

* 

Charles Swarzentruber, * [UNPUBLISHED] 

* 

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 15, 2004

Filed: November 18, 2004

___________

Before MURPHY, HANSEN and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Charles Swarzentruber was convicted by a jury of multiple drug and firearm

offenses and sentenced to 188 months imprisonment. He seeks a new trial,

contending that the district court1

 should have sua sponte ordered a competency

hearing after he tested positive for methamphetamine during trial and that his

attorney's failure to request such a hearing denied him effective assistance. We

affirm. 

Appellate Case: 04-1210 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/18/2004 Entry ID: 1835629 
-2-

Swarzentruber was indicted on three counts of distributing methamphetamine,

two counts of possessing the drug with an intent to distribute, and one count of

possessing a firearm while unlawfully using drugs. On the first day of trial, two

witnesses testified they had obtained methamphetamine from Swarzentruber the prior

week, and one said he had used the drug with Swarzentruber during the past year.

Because one of the conditions of Swarzentruber's pretrial release was not to use

illegal substances, he was given a drug test which returned positive for

methamphetamine. After the district court observed that Swarzentruber exhibited no

outward signs of impairment and confirmed that he was able to communicate

effectively with his lawyer, the trial proceeded.

Swarzentruber argues that due process requires a hearing whenever sufficient

doubt is raised about a defendant's competency at trial, Griffin v. Lockhart, 935 F.2d

926, 929 (8th Cir. 1991), and that the district court erred by not holding such a

hearing. The factors to be considered in deciding whether a hearing is necessary

include evidence of irrational behavior, the defendant's demeanor at trial, and any

prior medical opinions concerning the defendant's competency. Id. at 930. None of

these factors raised doubt as to Swarzentruber's competency at the time of trial, for

the record reveals no irrational behavior and the court made findings to the contrary.

The use of drugs "does not per se render a defendant incompetent to stand trial."

Lewis v. United States, 542 F.2d 50, 51 (8th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 837

(1976). Swarzentruber has not shown that the court erred by not holding a

competency hearing or that his due process rights were violated.

Swarzentruber also argues that his trial counsel's failure to request a

competency hearing denied him effective assistance. This claim is premature on

direct appeal. See United States v. Jackson, 41 F.3d 1231, 1234 (8th Cir. 1994).

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1210 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/18/2004 Entry ID: 1835629