FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT DEC 28 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 11158 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 0 0 0 3 8 - C R - OR L - 2 8 - J GG U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s M A R G U E R I T E Y O U N G S M I T H , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( D e c e m b e r 28, 2006) B efo re B L A C K , W IL S O N an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:“To e stablish plain error , a def endant must show thereis (1) er ror, ( 2) that is plain, and 1 (3) that a ffe cts substantial rights.” Un ited S tates v. M oriarty , 429 F.3d 1012, 1019 ( 11th Cir. 2 M a r gue r i t e Y oung S m i th appe a l s he rc onvi c t i on a nd 30- m onth s e nt e nc e f or p r e s e n t i n g a f

a l s e c l a i m t o th e I n t e rn a l Re v e n u e Se r v i c e , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U . S. C. §§ 28 7 and 2. S m i th con t ends the di stri ctcourterre d i n acc ept i ng her gui l ty pl ea and p roce edi ng t o sent ence her because s he w as i ncom pet entatbo th the pl ea h e a r in g a n d th e s e n te n c in g h e a r in g . W e c o n c lu d e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e rrin a c c e p tin g h e rg u ilty p le a a n d s e n te n c in g h e r , a n d w e a f f ir m . I . ST AN DA RD OF RE VI EW T h e c ru c ia l f

a c to rin d e te r m in in g w h ic h s ta n d a r d o f r e v ie w to ap p ly is w h eth er S m i th w ai v ed h er o b j ect i o n s t o th e p l ea h eari n g o r fo rfei t ed th o se o b je c tio n s . I f

S m ith w a iv e d th e m , th a t is in te n tio n a lly a b a n d o n e d a k n o w n r ig h t, S m i th canno tno w ar gu e thatthe di stri ctcourterre d u nd erthi s C i rc ui t ’ s i nv i t ed e rr o rd o c tr in e . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. L ove , 4 4 9 F .3 d 1 1 5 4 , 1 1 5 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . If , ho w ever , S m i th o nl y f orfe i t ed the obj ec t i on s, thati s f ai l ed t o t i m el y a ss ertthat r ig h t, th is C ir c u it w ill r e v ie w th o s e a lle g e d e rr o r s u n d e rits p la in e rr o rd o c tr in e . Se e U n ite d S ta te s v . C a n de la r io , 24 F . 3d 13 00 , 13 06 (11t h C i r. 20 01 ). In thi s c as e, w e ne e d notde t e r m i ne w he the rS m i th w a i ve d he rc om pe t e nc y a r gum e nt s or f or f e i t e d the m , be c a us e w e c onc l ude tha te ve n unde rthe m or e s tr i nge ntpl a i n e rr or re vi ew , the di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr. 12005). I f Smith m akes this showing , this Court m ay rec ognize the error

and reverseonly

if the error “a ffe cts the integrity , fairne ss or public reputation of judicial proce eding s.” Id. 3 I I . DI S C US S I ON S m i th c ha l l e nge s both the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de t e r m i na t i on s he w a s c om pe t e nt w h e n s h e p le d g u ilty a n d its d e te r m in a tio n s h e w a s c o m p e te n t w h e n s e n te n c e d . E a c h c l a i m w i l l be di s c us s e d i n tur n. S m i th w a s c om pe t e ntt o pl e a d gui l ty be c a us e s he r a t i ona l l y di s c us s e d the p r o c e e d in g s w ith h e rla w y e ra n d u n d e r s to o d th e n a tu r e o f th e p r o c e e d in g s . A d e f e n d a n t is c o m p e te n t to p le a d g u ilty if s h e “h a s s u f

f ic ie n t p r e s e n t ab ility to c ons ul tw i th . . . he rl a w y e rw i th a r e a s ona bl e de gr e e of r a t i ona l unde r s t a ndi ng a nd

. . . has r at i on al as w el l as fa ctual un ders t andi ng s of the proceedi ng s. ” T i l l erv. Es p o s ito , 9 1 1 F .2 d 5 7 5 , 5 7 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t h a s th e d u ty to e n s u r e a d e f

e n d a n t is c o m p e te n t a t e v e ry s ta g e o f a tr ia l. U

n ite d S ta te s v . R a h im , 431 F . 3d 753, 759 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . I f a di s tr i c tc our tha s a bona f i de doubt re gardi ng a def

endant ’ s c om pet ence , i tm ustcond ucta s u a s p o n te com pet ency h e a r in g . T

i l l er , 911 F . 2d a t576. T he di s tr i c tc our tha d no r e a s on t o doubtS m i th’ s c om pe t e nc y a tthe t i m e of the pl e a he a r i ng. S m i th w a s ps y c hol ogi c a l l y e va l ua t e d a nd f ound c om pe t e nta tthe t i m e the cr i m es w er e c om m i tt ed and w as foun d com pet entt o st and t ri al . In a d d itio n , S m ith ’s a tto rn e y s ta te d m o r e th a n o n c e th a t h e w a s s a tis f ie d th a t S m ith4

w as co m p et en tt o p l ead g u i l ty. S m i th st at ed th atsh e w as th i n k i n g cl earl y, u n d erst o o d th e p ro ceed i n g s an d w as ab l e t o m ak e d eci si o n s. B ased o n th ese facts, the di s tr i c tc our tha d no r e a s on t o doubtS m i th’ s c om pe t e nc y be c a us e s he r a t i ona l l y di s c us s e d the pr oc e e di ngs w i th he rl a w y e ra nd unde r s t ood the na tur e of the pr oc e e di ngs . T he r e f or e , the di s tr i c tc our tc om m i tt e d no e rr ori n a c c e pt i ng defe nd ant ’ s gui l ty pl ea . T he di stri ctcourtal so di d n oterr w hen i tse nt ence d S m i th. T he di stri ctcourt h a s th e d u ty to e n s u r e S m ith is c o m p e te n t a t s e n te n c in g . Se e R a h im , 43 1 F . 3d at 75 9. In det erm i ni ng w hether adefe nd anti s c om pet entt o b e s ent ence d, the di stri ct courtm ustl oo k atevi dence i nd i ca t i ng “ a pr e s e nt i na bi l i ty t o a s s i s tc ouns e l or un ders t and t he charges . ” Med i n a v. S i n g l eta ry , 59 F . 3d 10 95 , 11 07 (11t h C i r. 1995) . I n thi s c a s e , S m i th of f e r e d a c onf

l i c t i ng m e nt a l e xa m i na t i on a nd s t a t e d s he w a s c onf us e d. S he a l s o, how e ve r , s t a t e d tha ts he unde r s t ood e ve ry thi ng tha tw e nt on i n the pr oc e e di ngs , a nd he rc ouns e l s t a t e d tha ts he appe a r e d t o be c om pe t e nt a nd the r e w a s no r e a s on nott o pr oc e e d w i th s e nt e nc i ng. A di s tr i c tc our tdoe s not e rrs i m pl y by c r e di t i ng one opi ni on ove ra nothe rw he r e othe re vi de nc e i n the r e c o r d s u p p o r ts th e c o n c lu s io n . See B at t l e v . U ni t ed Stat es , 419 F . 3d 1292, 1299 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . T h e r e f o r e , s ta n d in g a lo n e , th e c o n f lic tin g m e d ic a l r e p o r t is i ns uf f i c i e ntt o de m ons tr a t e tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n f i ndi ng S m i th c om pe t e nt5

t o b e sen t en ced . A tth e sen t en ci n g h eari n g an d b ased o n h er at t o rn ey’ s t est i m o n y, she dem on stra t ed a pres entabi l i ty t o ass i sther l aw ye r a nd un ders t and t he charges a g a in s t h e ra n d th e p e n a ltie s s h e f a c e d . T h e r e f

o r e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e rrin s e nt e nc i ng S m i th. I I I . C ON C L US I ON A t a ll r e le v a n t tim e s d u r in g th e p r o c e e d in g s , S m ith s h o w e d a p r e s e n t ab ility to u n d e r s ta n d th e p r o c e e d in g s a g a in s t h e ra n d a s s is t in h e ro w n d e f e n s e . T he r e f or e , the di s tr i c tc our tc om m i tt e d no e rr or , pl a i n orothe rw i s e , i n s e nt e nc i ng S m ith o ra c c e p tin g h e rg u ilty p le a . AF F I RME D.