Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01885/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01885-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Elmer Keith Taylor
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Northern District of Iowa. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1885

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Elmer Keith Taylor, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 3, 2004

Filed: December 8, 2004 

___________

Before RILEY, McMILLIAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Elmer Keith Taylor (Taylor) pled guilty to being an armed career criminal in

possession of a firearm, and the district court1

 sentenced him in accordance with the

parties’ stipulation under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) to 420

months imprisonment and 5 years supervised release. On appeal, Taylor challenges

the district court’s order finding him competent to stand trial, and we affirm. 

Appellate Case: 04-1885 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/08/2004 Entry ID: 1842137 
-2-

“Due process requires that a defendant be competent to plead guilty.” Hunter

v. Bowersox, 172 F.3d 1016, 1020 (8th Cir. 1999). The test for determining

competency to plead guilty or proceed to trial is “whether a criminal 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.’” Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 172 (1975)

(quoting Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960) (per curiam)). 

Having carefully reviewed the record, we find no clear error in the district

court’s competency ruling. See United States v. Cook, 356 F.3d 913, 918 (8th Cir.

2004) (standard of review). Notwithstanding one psychologist’s view that Taylor was

incompetent, the court’s ruling was supported by the report and testimony of a staff

psychologist at the United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners in Springfield,

Missouri, where Taylor was evaluated for about a month. The staff psychologist

found Taylor had no mental disorder that would interfere with his ability to

understand the proceedings against him and assist in his defense. See United States

v. Tucker, 243 F.3d 499, 506 (8th Cir.) (when there are two permissible views of

evidence, factfinder’s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous). The court’s

ruling was also supported by Taylor’s demeanor at the competency hearings, when

Taylor raised questions about his constitutionally guaranteed trial rights and about his

counsel’s performance, and at the change-of-plea hearing, when Taylor assured the

court that he understood the proceedings and felt better emotionally than he had in

the past. See Vogt v. United States, 88 F.3d 587, 591 (8th Cir. 1996) (in considering

defendant’s mental competency to stand trial, attention should be paid to any

evidence of defendant’s irrational behavior, his demeanor before trial court, available

medical evaluations, and whether counsel questioned defendant’s competency before

court).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1885 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/08/2004 Entry ID: 1842137