T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d byN i nth C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yf i nds thi s c a s e t o be s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2)(C ). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. E R I C AL E XA ND E R C ON C E P C I ON AL VA R AD O, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 08- 10073 D C N o . C R 0 5 - 1 3 0 8 J MR ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

A r i z ona J ohn M . R ol l , C hi e f

D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d J une 14, 2010 ** S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: O ’ S C A N N L A IN , T A S H IM A , an d B E A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. D e f e nda ntE r i c C onc e pc i on- A l va r a do ( “ C onc e pc i on” ) appe a l s f r om the j ud gm entent er ed on Janu ary 30, 20 08 , fol l ow i ng hi s pl eaof gu i l ty t o i l l egal r e e n tryin to th e U n ite d S ta te s . C o n c e p c io n c o n te n d s th a t th e tr ia l c o u rt v io la te d h is 

# FI LED JU L 01 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

d u e p r o c e s s r ig h ts b yf

a ilin g to c o n d u c t a n e v id e n tia ryh e a r in g r e g a r d in g h is com pet encybefore ac ce pt i ng hi s gui l ty pl ea . H e a l so ar gu es thatthe tri al court cl earl y erred b y d et erm i n i n g th ath e w as co m p et en tt o p l ead g u i l ty. W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n d w e a f f i rm. B ACKGROUN D C on ce pci on w as arre st ed on June 11 , 20 05 and charged w i th i l l egal re entry af t erdepo rt at i on un der 8 U . S . C . § 1 32 6. O ver the course of the di stri ctcourt proceedi ng s, C on ce pci on w as re pres ent ed by four court -app oi nt ed att orneys , at l e a s ttw o of

w hom m ove d t o w i thdr a w be c aus e of al a c k of c om m uni c a t i on or u n d e r s ta n d in g . A tthe re qu es tof C on ce pci on ’ s f ou rth att orney, the m agi stra t e j ud ge ordered tw o p sych o l o g i cal ev al u at i o n s. N ei th er ev al u at i o n i n d i cat ed th atC o n cep ci o n w as notc om pe t e ntt o s t a nd tr i a l . C onc e pc i on’ s a tt orne yc ont e s t e d the c onc l us i ons c o n ta in e d in th e r e p o rts , a n d th e m a g is tr a te s c h e d u le d as ta tu s c o n f e r e n c e to de t e rm i ne w he the ra n e vi de nt i a ryhe a r i ng w a s ne c e s s a ry . B e f or e the da t e of

the s ta tu s c o n f

e r e n c e , h o w e v e r , C o n c e p c io n f ile d an o tic e f

o rac h a n g e o f

p le ah e a r in g . T h e s t a tu s c o n f

e r e n c e wa s t a k e n o f

f c a l e n d a ra n d C o n c e p c i o n p l e a d e d g u i l ty . At the pl eahear i ng , hi s a tt orney a ckno w l edged thatshe bel i eved C on ce pci on w as com pet entt o p l ea d g ui l ty. T he courtse nt ence d C on ce pci on t o seventy- se ven3

m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t a n d th irty - s ix m o n th s o f s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e . T h is tim e ly appe a l f ol l ow e d. S TAND ARD OF R EVIEW O ur re vi ew of the di stri ctcourt ’ s f ai l ure t o p rovi de a c om pet ency h e a r in g is

“ com prehensi ve. ” Sm i th v. Y l st , 826 F . 2d 872, 875 ( 9th C i r . 1987) . T he que s t i on is w h e th e rs u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e o f in c o m p e te n c e e x is ts “s u c h th a t ar e a s o n ab le ju d g e w o u ldb e e x p ec ted to ex p er ien ce a g en u in e d o u b t res p ec ti n g th e d ef en d an t’ s com pet ence . ” U

ni ted States v. M

arks , 5 3 0 F .3 d 7 9 9 , 8 1 4 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) . W e r e v ie w ad is tr ic t c o u rt’s d e te rm in a tio n th a t ad e f e n d a n t is c o m p e te n t to s ta n d tr ia l f

o rc le a re rr o r . U

ni te d State s v . G as te lum -A lm e i da , 298 F . 3d 1167, 1171 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . D ISCUSSI ON A di stri ctcourtm ustorder acom pet encyhear i ng ei ther on the m ot i on of a party or s u a s

p o n te , w he r e the r e i s “ r e a s onabl e c aus e t o be l i e ve tha tthe de f e nda nt m a yp r e s e n tlyb e s u f

f e r in g f r o m am e n ta l d is e a s e o rd e f e c t r e n d e r in g h im m e n ta lly i nc om pe t e ntt o the e xt e nttha the i s unabl e t o unde r s t a nd the na tur e a nd consequences of the proceedi ng s a gai nsthi m or t o ass i stprop er l y i n h i s def ense . ” 18 U . S . C . § 4 24 1(a) . H er e, subst ant i al evi dence di d n otra i se a r ea sonabl e dou btas t o C on ce pci on ’ s c om pet ence . F i rs tand forem ost , the m agi stra t e j ud ge grant ed4

C on ce pci on ’ s r equestt o b e e val uat ed fi rs tby a psy chol og i stof hi s c ho i ce , and l at er b yth e m e d ic a l te am a t ap s y c h ia tr ic h o s p ita l o f h is c h o ic e o v e ra n e x te n d e d p e r io d . T he psyc ho l og i ca l eval uat i on s f rom bo th sou rc es concl ud ed thatC on ce pci on w as c o m p e te n t. I n a d d itio n , d u r in g th e c o u r s e o f th e p r o c e e d in g s b e f

o r e th e c o u rt, C o n c e p c io n d idn o t e x h ib it a n ys ig n s o f m e n ta l d is e a s e in d ic a tiv e o f in c o m p e te n c e . See U ni ted States v. Ferna ndez , 3 8 8 F .3 d 1 1 9 9 , 1 2 5 1 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( n o tin g th a t a defe nd ant ’ s i rr at i on al behavi or and d em eano r i n cou rtar e f ac t ors w hi ch a c ou rt m ayconsi der i n d et erm i ni ng com pet ency ). F urther, C on ce pci on ’ s a tt orney a c k n o w le d g e d a t th e p le ah e a r in g th a t h e rc lie n t w a s c o m p e te n t to p le a d . W e r e je c t C o n c e p c io n ’s c o n te n tio n th a t h e w a s in c o m p e te n t b e c au s e h e d id n o t u n d e r s ta n d h is la w y e r s a n d th e le g a l s y s te m . T h e m a g is tr a te ju d g e r e a s o n ab ly i nt e rpr e t e d C onc e pc i on’ s a s s e rt e d “ l a c k of unde r s t a ndi ng” a s r e f

l e c t i ng a d is a g r e e m e n t w ith th e la w r a th e rth a n a n in ab ilityto u n d e r s ta n d th e p r o c e e d in g s . A r e f u s a l to b e lie v e w h a t th e la w is d o e s n o t, o n its o w n , a m o u n t to in c o m p e te n c e . See M arks , 530 F . 3d a t814- 15 ( c onc l udi ng tha tthe de f e nda nt ’ s be l i e f

tha tthe c o u rt la c k e d le g a l au th o r ityo v e rh im w a s “n o t in d ic a tiv e o f a n in ab ilityto un ders t and the proceedi ng s a gai nsthi m or cond ucthi s ow n d ef ense ”) . C onc e pc i on’ s c ont e nt i on tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtw a s r e qui r e d t o hol d a com pet encyhear i ng un der U n i ted S ta tes v. N

eva rez-Ca stro , 12 0 F . 3d 19 0 (9th C i r.5

1 9 9 7 ) , s im ila r lyla c k s m e r it. N e v ar ez - Cas tr o i s i napp osi t e bec ause here , the court n e v e rf o u n d th a t C o n c e p c io n w a s in c o m p e te n t u n d e r§ 4 2 4 1 ( d ) . Se e i d. a t191; Form ha l s v . U ni ted States , 27 8 F . 2d 43 , 48 (9th C i r. 19 60 ) ( “ [A] f teran accuse d h a s b e e n ju d ic ia llyde te rm in e d in c o m p e te n t to s ta n d tr ia l, h e c a n n o t b e b r o u g h t to tri al un l es s there has bee n a subsequentj ud i ci al det erm i nat i on of re st ored com pet ency . ” ( em ph as i s a dd ed)) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt s u f

f ic ie n tlyin q u ir e d in to C o n c e p c io n ’s c o m p e te n c e . B e c au s e s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e d idn o t r a is e ar e a s o n ab le d o u b t a s to h is c om pe t e nc y , the di s tr i c tc ourta l s o di d notc l e a r l ye rri n f i ndi ng tha tC onc e pc i on w a s c o m p e te n t to p le a d g u ilty . C ONCLUSI ON F or the foregoi ng re as on s, the j ud gm entand sent ence ar e AF F I RME D.