T he ca s e i s unani m ous l yor der ed s ubm i t t ed w i thoutor al ar gum ent * pur s uantt o Fed. R . A pp. P. 34( a) ( 2) and 10th C i r . R . 34. 1( G ) . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### A u gu s t17,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. OS CA R MED I NA, D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 05- 8080 ( D. C. No . 0 3 - CR - 1 5 9 - D) (D . W y o .)

OR DER AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e KELLY , M c KAY , and LU CE RO , C i rcui tJudg es. O s carM edi na appe al s hi s s ent ence of 25 y ear s ’ i m pr i s onm enti m pos ed fo llo w in g h is g u ilty p le a s fo r W itn e s s T a m p e ri n g in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 51 2(b)( 3), W i tness R et al i at i on i n v i olat i on of 1 8 U . S . C . § 1 51 2(b)( 2), and U se of Fi r e t o C om m i ta Fel onyi n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 844( h) ( 1) . H e ar gues t hat the di s tr i ctcourtvi ol at ed hi s r i ghtt o due pr oces s byacc ept i ng thes e pl eas w i t hout first h o ld in g a c o m p e ten c yh e a rin g . H e a lso c laim s th a t, be c a u se h is p u b lic- 2 -

d e fe n d e r fa iled to file a m o tio n fo r a c o m p e ten c yh e a rin g , h e w a s d e n ied h is S ix th A m endmentr i ghtt o effect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el . M edi na’ s couns el m oves for l eave t o w i thdr aw i n a br i ef f i l ed pur s uantt o A nder s v. C al i forni a, 386 U . S. 738 (1 9 6 7 ). B e c a u se M e d in a h a s n o t p re se n ted fa c ts th a t “e sta b lish th a t a r e a so n a b le ju d g e s h o u ld h a v e h a d a b o n a fid e d o u b t a s to h is c o m p e te n c e a t th e tim e o f tr ia l,” M cG regor v. G i bson , 24 8 F . 3d 94 6, 95 4 (10th C i r. 20 01 ) ( en b anc), and becau se i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m s ar e notnor m al l ycons i der ed on di r ect appea l , w e A F F I R M M edi na’ s s ent ence , D I SM I SS the appe al , and GRANT c o u n s e l ’ s mo t i o n t o wi th d r a w. O n H al l ow een ni ght , 2001, M edi na s etfi r e t o the home of R ol ando D avi l a, Jr. T h e a rso n w a s in c laim e d re talia tio n a g a in st D a v ila fo r h is c o o p e ra tio n w ith l aw enfor cementoffi ci al s w hi ch l ed t o the arr es tof M edi na’ s cl os e fr i end, Fr anci s co V al as quez. Fr om thi s s i ngl e i nci dent , M edi na w as char ged w i th the U se o f a D e stru c tiv e D e v ice D u rin g a n d in R e latio n to a C rim e o f V io len c e in v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 (c ), i n a d d itio n to th e c ri m e s to w h ic h h e p le d g u ilty. A f ter in iti a llye n ter in g a p lea o f n o t g u ilty , M e d in a d e c id e d to c h a n g e h is pl ea fol l ow i ng the fi r s tdayof the governm ent ’ s cas e i n chi ef. O n J une 2, 2005 he s i g n e d a wr i t t e n p l e a a g r e e me n ti n wh i c h t h e g o v e rn me n td i s mi s s e d t h e 1 8 U. S . C. § 924( c) char ge and he pl ed gui l tyt o the r emai ni ng count s agai ns thi m , agr eei ng t o a s ent ence r ecomm endat i on of 25 y ear s ’ i m pr i s onm ent . A tt he cha nge of pl ea hear i ng hel d l at erthatday , M edi na, t hr ough hi s l aw y er , i nform ed the courtt hathe- 3 -

w as h av ing a “ m en tal b rea k d o w n ” a n d ask ed to sp ea k to a p sy ch o log isto r a p sy c h iatris t. T h e c o u rt n o ted th a t M e d in a w a s fa c in g a n e x c e e d in g lyd ifficu lt deci s i on and found hi s r eac t i on t o be a “ heal thy , norm al r es pons e t o the ci r cumst ance s i n w hi ch he f i nds hi m s el f. ” The cour ti nform ed hi m thathe w as f re e to re c o n sid e r, an d a f ter a b rie f

d isc u ss io n w ith h is la w y e r, M e d in a c h o se to g o fo rw a rd w ith th e p lea a g re e m e n t. M edi na w as t hen pl ace d underoath and the courtconduct ed the r equi r ed pl ea c ol l oquy . D ur i ng t he col l oquy , the courtas ked M edi na w hetherhe w as u n d e r t h e c a re o f

a p s y c h ia tr is t o r h a d e v e r b e e n tr e a te d fo r m e n ta l illn e s s . M e d in a re s p o n d e d th a t h e w a s o n m e d ic a tio n fo r t h e tr e a tm e n t o f b ip o la r d is o rd e r. A teac h s t age of

the court ’ s thor ough ques t i oni ng, M edi na i ndi cat ed thathe under s t ood the cons equenc es of hi s act i ons . H e then pr ovi ded the courta fa ctual b a sis su fficie n t to su p p o rt a fin d in g o f g u ilto n th e th re e c h a rg e s. F o llo w in g th is col l oquy , the courtfound M edi na “f ul l ycompet entand ca pabl e of e nt er i ng an in fo rm e d p le a .” A t th e se n ten c in g h e a rin g , h e ld A u g u st 1 1 , 2 0 0 5 , M e d in a o n c e a g a in equi vocat ed, cl ai m i ng thathe di d notunder s t and the pl ea a gr eement , and thathe di d nothave the ment al capa ci tyt o ent eri nt o the agr eementbeca us e of pr i orhead i nj ur i es . U nconvi nced, t he di s tr i ctcourtdecl ar ed “I don’ tbel i eve a tal l that y o u ’re m en tal lyinco m p eten t, sir . I th ink that’s j u st a l o t of h o o ey . ” H o w ev er, aft erpaus i ng t o car eful l yr evi ew the r ecor d, the di s tr i ctcour tdet erm i ned that- 4 -

M edi na had notform al l yent er ed hi s pl ea a tthe cha nge of pl ea he ar i ng. M edi na agai n cons ul t ed w i th hi s l aw y erand dec i ded t o pr ocee d w i th hi s gui l typl ea, but s oughtand obt ai ned tw o m odi fi cat i ons t o the pl ea a gr eementfr om the g o v ern m en t. F ir st, the g o v ern m en t w o u ld leav e o p en the p o ssibil ityfo r a r educt i on i n s ent ence i n excha nge forfutur e s ubs t ant i al cooper at i on. Second, M edi na w oul d notw ai ve hi s r i ghtt o appea l . A ft erform al l yent er i ng hi s pl ea, t he cou rtsent enced M edina t o the r ecom m end ed 2 5 y ears . H e no w app eal s. I f an a t t orneycons ci ent i ous l yexami nes a ca s e and de t erm i nes thatany app eal w ou l d b e w ho l l yfri vo l ou s, cou nsel m ayso adv i se the co urtand request p e rm iss io n to w ith d ra w . A n d e rs, 3 8 6 U .S . at 7 4 4 . C o u n se l m u st s u b m it a b rie f to both the appe l l at e courtand the cl i entpoi nt i ng t o anythi ng i n the r ecor d that w o u ld p o ten tiallyp re se n t an a p p e a lab le is su e . T h e c lien t m a yth e n c h o o se to offe ranyar gum entt o the court . I f, upon compl et el yexami ni ng the r ecor d, the c o u rt d e ter m in e s th a t th e a p p e a l is in fa c t f riv o lo u s, it m a yg ra n t th e re q u e st to w ith d ra w a n d d is m is s th e a p p e a l. I d . In th e p re se n t ca se , ac tin g p u rsu a n t to A nder s , couns el pr ovi ded M edi na w i th a copyof the appe l l at e br i ef a nd M edi na h a s n o t file d a p ro s e b ri e f ra is in g a n ya rg u m e n t. C ouns el ’ s A nder s br i ef r ai s es tw o pot ent i al l yappea l abl e i s s ues . Fi r s t , the br i ef a s s ert s a pr ocedur al compet encycl ai m . See M cG r egor , 248 F. 3d at952 ( “A pr ocedur al compet encycl ai m i s bas ed upon a tr i al cour t ’ s al l eged fai l ur e t o hol d a com petencyheari ng . . . . ”). In order t o p revai l on such clai m , a defend ant m ust- 5 -

“ e sta b lish th a t a r e a so n a b le ju d g e sh o u ld h a v e h a d a b o n a fid e d o u b t as to h is compet ence atthe t i m e of tr i al . ” I d. at954. W hen a c om pet encyhear i ng w as not hel d, ourr evi ew of a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s compet encydet erm i nat i on “i s notl i m i t ed by th e c lea rlye rro n e o u s s tan d a rd .” U n ited S tate s v . C re w s, 7 8 1 F .2 d 8 2 6 , 8 3 3 (1 0 th C i r . 1986) . A cr i m i nal defe ndanti s compet enti f he pos s es s es “s uffi ci entpr es ent abi l i tyt o cons ul tw i th hi s l aw y erw i th a r eas onabl e degr ee of r at i onal under s t andi ng – and . . . a r at i onal as w el l as a fa ctual under s t andi ng of the p ro c e e d in g s a g a in s t h im .” D u s k yv . U n ite d S ta te s , 3 6 2 U .S . 4 0 2 , 4 0 2 (1 9 6 0 ). N o th in g in th e re c o rd in d ica tes th a t M e d in a w a s u n a b le to c o n su lt w ith h is l aw y er orun derst and t he p roceedings againsthim . T o the con trary , his dis tres s a n d v a c illa tio n in d ic a te th a t h e f u lly c o m p re h e n d e d th e g ra v ity o f h is g u ilty p le a . E ven i n the fi nal s t ages of the s ent enci ng hear i ng, des pi t e hi s pr ot es t s of i ncompet ence , M edi na and hi s l aw y erw er e abl e t o bar gai n foraddi t i onal conce s s i ons i n the pl ea a gr eement . T hes e ar e notthe ac t i ons of a pe r s on w ho l acks un derst and i ng of the proceed i ng s agai nsthim . G i ven the record before us, w e c o n c lu d e th a t a r e a so n a b le ju d g e w o u ld n o t h a v e h a d a b o n a fid e d o u b t as to M edi na’ s compet ence . T he s econd pot ent i al l yappea l abl e i s s ue i s M edi na’ s i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m . I n thi s ci r cui t , exce pti n r ar e ci r cumst ance s , i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m s m us tbe pr es ent ed i n col l at er al pr ocee di ngs . U ni t ed S tat es v . G all o w ay , 5 6 F . 3 d 1 2 3 9 , 1 2 4 0 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) (en b an c). M ed ina’s- 6 -

cl ai m i s br oughton di r ectappea l , m aki ng i t“pr es um pt i vel ydi s m i s s i bl e, and v irtuallyall [su ch claim s] w il l be d ism issed . ” Id . T h is ru le all o w s a d istri ct co u rt t o devel op t he fa ctual r ecor d nece s s aryforeffect i ve r evi ew . See M as s ar o v. U n ited S tate s, 5 3 8 U .S . 5 0 0 , 5 0 5 -0 6 (2 0 0 3 ). T h e p re se n t cla im d o e s n o t fa ll i n to the n arro w ca tego ryo f c ase s tha t r eq u ir e n o fu rth er d ev elop m en t and are there fo re s ui t abl e forr evi ew on di r ectappea l . C f. U ni t ed St at es v. Sm i th, 10 F. 3d 724, 728 ( 10th C i r . 1993) ( fi ndi ng the r ecor d s uffi ci entt o r evi ew an i neffect i ve as s i s t ance o f c o u n se l cla im o n d ire c t ap p e a l w h e re d e fe n se c o u n se l av e rre d to m ista k e n ly om i t t i ng a j uryi ns truct i on on a l es s eri ncl uded offens e) . A ccor di ngl y , i f M edi na i nt ends t o pur s ue thi s cl ai m fur therhe mustr ai s e i ti n a col l at er al pr ocee di ng u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 . Be c a u s e we a r e n o tp r e s e n t e d wi th a n yme r i t o r i o u s g r o u n d s fo ra p p e a l , we GR ANT c o u n s e l’ s re q u e s t to w ith d ra w , AF F I RM t he s ent ence , and D I SM I SS th e a p p e a l. ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT

C arlos F . L u ce ro C i r cui tJ udge