Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01147/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01147-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Albert Leonard Rutherford
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

. FILED 

Uoned States Cou.rr of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

NOV 2 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECK.£R 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

ALBERT LEONARD RUTHERFORD, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 90-1147 

(D.C. No. 88-CR-39) 

(D. Colorado) 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and TACHA, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Albert Leonard Rutherford, who was convicted of hostage 

taking in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1203, and who is serving a 

sentence of imprisonment, has filed two motions with the district 

court, one pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b) for reduction or 

modification of sentence and the other under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to 

* 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. 

Appellate Case: 90-1147 Document: 010110051359 Date Filed: 11/26/1990 Page: 1 
vacate, set aside or correct his sentence. The district court 

denied both motions. 

Rutherford's brief on appeal addresses only the § 2255 

motion, although the government treats the appeal as challenging 

both denials. We have read the entire district court record. We 

will treat the denial of both motions as being before us on 

appeal. 

The basis of the request for a reduction or modification of a 

sentence pursuant to Rule 35 appears to be a plea for leniency 

based upon the benefit Rutherford's children and grandaughter 

would secure by his earlier release from prison, and based upon 

his excellent record in prison during the short time he has been 

incarcerated. The district court order notes that Rutherford was 

given a presumptive parole date of June 4, 1992, at the bottom of 

his guideline range, and it made a minor modification of the 

sentence in light of his excellent progress in prison, pursuant to 

now repealed 18 U.S.C. § 4205(b)(2). This permits his release on 

parole as soon as the Parole Commission should determine. No 

argument is made on appeal or appears from the record to justify 

reversing the district court's decision on the Rule 35 motion. 

The thrust of the appeal is directed to Rutherford's § 2255 

claims. First, he recites that he had a long history of mental 

troubles prior to trial, that although the matter was an issue and 

the trial court determined that he was competent at the time he 

committed the crime, it made no specific finding that he was 

competent to stand trial. Arguing that he was not competent to 

stand trial because of his history of mental illness and the 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-1147 Document: 010110051359 Date Filed: 11/26/1990 Page: 2 
additional stress imposed by the indictment and trial, Rutherford 

asserts that he was denied constitutional rights. On this issue 

we note that Rutherford raised the insanity defense at trial, t hat 

Rutherford's psychiatric history was apparent to the trial court, 

his defense counsel and the prosecution, and that the record 

contains no indication that this history of illness affected 

Rutherford's competence to stand trial. At trial defendant 

presented extensive evidence from experts in t ~ fie l ds of 

psychiatry and psychology who had examined him before trial, yet 

neither the experts nor Rutherford's attorney suggested that he 

was incompetent to proceed. In short, nothing in defendant's 

brief or the record raises a bona fide doubt as to his competency 

to stand trial. We therefore conclude that the district court d id 

not abuse its discretion in failing to order an evidentiary 

hearing on the matter. 

On appeal Rutherford also asserts that pretrial publicity 

created an atmosphere of hostility surrounding his trial thereby 

rendering the trial fundamentally unfair. We agree with the 

government that this issue, like that of his lack of competency to 

stand trial, should have been raised in the direct appeal and 

cannot be reserved for a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See United 

States v. Hall, 843 F.2d 408, 409 (10th Cir. 1988); United States 

v. Khan, 835 F.2d 749, 753 (10th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 4 87 

U.S. 1222 (1988). Although at least two circuits have held that 

the question of a defendant's competency to stand trial can be 

raised in a post-conviction proceeding, see Fallada v. Dugger, 819 

F.2d 1564, 1567-68 n.1 (11th Cir. 1987); Enriquez v. Procunier, 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-1147 Document: 010110051359 Date Filed: 11/26/1990 Page: 3 
752 F.2d 111, 114 (5th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1126 

(1985), we think the cause and prejudice standard of United States 

v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 167-68 (1983), applies at least to the 

pretrial publicity claim. Rutherford has made no showing to 

satisfy the cause prong of that standard for his failure to raise 

the issue in a direct appeal. Even if the issue is properl y 

before us, there is nothing in the record to support t he 

contention that the trial was rendered fundamentally unfair 

because of the publicity surrounding it. 

AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-4-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-1147 Document: 010110051359 Date Filed: 11/26/1990 Page: 4