Source: https://openjurist.org/155/f3d/1181
Timestamp: 2017-09-22 22:52:23
Document Index: 630699903

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 591', '§ 2241', '§ 115', '§ 4241', '§ 4241', '§ 4241', '§ 4241']

155 F3d 1181 United States v. Boigegrain | OpenJurist
155 F. 3d 1181 - United States v. Boigegrain
155 F3d 1181 United States v. Boigegrain
155 F.3d 1181
98 CJ C.A.R. 4453
Walter Scot BOIGEGRAIN, Defendant-Appellant.
The defendant filed his appeal from that order on December 19, 1996. Counsel for the defendant moved to withdraw the appeal on the basis that this court had no jurisdiction because there was no final order issued. The en banc court found that we have jurisdiction over appeals from section 4241(d) commitment orders. See United States v. Boigegrain, 122 F.3d 1345, 1349 (10th Cir.1997) (en banc) (per curiam) (overruling United States v. Cheama, 730 F.2d 1383 (10th Cir.1984)). The court then ordered briefing on the merits, which are before this panel now.
Boigegrain, 122 F.3d at 1347 n. 1 (quoting United States v. Gundersen, 978 F.2d 580, 581 n. 1 (10th Cir.1992)). Because the defendant is appealing his commitment pursuant to section 4241(d), it is his release from that commitment, if anything, that would moot this appeal. The fact that he entered into a plea agreement has no impact on the completely separate commitment issue. Cf. Boigegrain, 122 F.3d at 1349 (finding a commitment order under section 4241(d) to be "completely separate from the merits of the action"). We are governed by the law of the case as stated in the previous opinion. Mr. Boigegrain's appeal is not moot.
The defendant raises three issues on appeal. First, he contends that the proceedings in this case violated his right to waive his counsel and to represent himself. We review the district court's finding of historical facts for clear error. See, e.g., United States v. Robertson, 45 F.3d 1423, 1430 (10th Cir.1995). We review de novo, however, the ultimate question of whether a constitutional violation took place. See United States v. Taylor, 113 F.3d 1136, 1140 (10th Cir.1997).
Criminal defendants have a constitutional right, rooted in the Sixth Amendment, to conduct their own defense. See Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). Thus, a lawyer cannot be forced upon a defendant who wishes to act as his own representative, even if self-representation would be detrimental to the defendant. See id. at 834, 95 S.Ct. 2525. In this case, the defendant moved to dismiss the public defender in June of 1996. The district court did not rule on the motion for over five months, during which time the public defender raised the competency issue and did not argue, as the defendant apparently wished him to, that the defendant was competent to stand trial. The defendant argues that the delayed resolution of his motion and his lawyer's taking a position contrary to his own denied him the right to waive counsel and represent himself.
An accused who forgoes the assistance of counsel surrenders substantial benefits. Therefore, "in order to represent himself, the accused must 'knowingly and intelligently' forgo those relinquished benefits." Id. at 835, 95 S.Ct. 2525 (quoting Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464-65, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938)); see also United States v. Baker, 84 F.3d 1263, 1264 (10th Cir.1996). The defendant's decision to waive counsel must be knowing, voluntary, and competent before it can be recognized. See Faretta, 422 U.S. at 835, 95 S.Ct. 2525; Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 399-400, 113 S.Ct. 2680, 125 L.Ed.2d 321 (1993) ("[A] defendant choosing self-representation must do so 'competently and intelligently' ....") (quoting Faretta, 422 U.S. at 835, 95 S.Ct. 2525). The district court had a duty to ensure that the defendant was choosing self-representation in an informed manner before allowing him to proceed on his own.
Here, the court waited to rule on the defendant's motion to dismiss the public defender until the issue of the defendant's competency to stand trial had been resolved. That was the most appropriate course because "[l]ogically, the trial court cannot simultaneously question a defendant's mental competence to stand trial and at one and the same time be convinced that the defendant has knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel." United States v. Purnett, 910 F.2d 51, 55 (2d Cir.1990). Although that common sense statement almost resolves this matter on its own, a more recent case from the Supreme Court, Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 113 S.Ct. 2680, 125 L.Ed.2d 321 (1993), clarifies it completely. In Godinez, the Court held that the degree of competence necessary to waive the right to counsel is identical to the degree of competence necessary to stand trial. See id. at 399-400, 113 S.Ct. 2680. Therefore, it was impossible for the district court to allow the defendant to waive counsel before determining whether he was competent to stand trial. Before resolving the first question, the court had to resolve the second.
"Ineffective assistance of counsel claims should be brought in collateral proceedings, not on direct appeal." United States v. Galloway, 56 F.3d 1239, 1240 (10th Cir.1995) (en banc). We are reluctant to hear claims of ineffective assistance advanced for the first time in this court because we work at a distinct disadvantage when we operate without the factual development and judicial reasoning afforded by lower court proceedings. See id. (discussing Beaulieu v. United States, 930 F.2d 805, 806-07 (10th Cir.1991) (overruled on other grounds by Galloway, 56 F.3d at 1241)). Therefore, only in the very rare instance that a claim of ineffective assistance is fully developed in the record will we hear it for the first time on appeal. See Galloway, 56 F.3d at 1242.
Normally, we require criminal defendants alleging ineffective assistance of counsel to obtain a ruling by a district court on their argument by way of a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See, e.g., id.; United States v. Yates, 22 F.3d 981, 985-86 (10th Cir.1994). An individual in Mr. Boigegrain's position, however, cannot file such a motion. Section 2255 allows "[a] prisoner in custody under sentence" to argue that his sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255. A defendant temporarily committed pursuant to section 4241(d) is neither a prisoner nor under sentence; after being found incompetent to stand trial, he is held in the custody of the attorney general as an accused rather than a criminal offender.
Persons being held because they have been found mentally incompetent can file petitions for writs of habeas corpus instead of motions under section 2255. See 3 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 591 (2d ed.1982); O'Beirne v. Overholser, 287 F.2d 133, 136 (D.C.Cir.1960); Hill v. United States, 206 F.2d 204, 207 (6th Cir.1953). If that course were open to the defendant, we would await a lower court ruling on a habeas petition before reaching the merits. In this case, however, the defendant cannot file a habeas corpus action. A writ of habeas corpus cannot be issued unless the person requesting it is under "restraint," see 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a), and Mr. Boigegrain has long since been released from his commitment.
In order to prove that the public defender rendered ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must show (1) that the counsel's performance was so deficient that it "fell below an objective standard of reasonableness," and (2) that the deficient performance prejudiced the defendant. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).
With regard to the first question, courts must indulge a strong presumption that counsel's actions constitute "reasonable professional assistance." Id. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Nonetheless, the defendant notes correctly that the Sixth Amendment requires a lawyer to act as an advocate for his client. See United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 656, 104 S.Ct. 2039, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984). If counsel does not act as an advocate for the defendant, the process "loses its character as a confrontation between adversaries," id. at 656-57, 104 S.Ct. 2039, and our entire justice system is premised on the belief that "debate between adversaries is often essential to the truth-seeking function of trials," Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349, 360, 97 S.Ct. 1197, 51 L.Ed.2d 393 (1977) (plurality opinion), quoted in Cronic, 466 U.S. at 655 n. 14, 104 S.Ct. 2039. "An effective attorney 'must play the role of an active advocate, rather than a mere friend of the court.' " Osborn v. Shillinger, 861 F.2d 612, 624 (10th Cir.1988) (quoting Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387, 394, 105 S.Ct. 830, 83 L.Ed.2d 821 (1985)).
As with the previous issue, common sense all but disposes of the matter. While the Sixth Amendment demands that counsel to criminal defendants act as their advocates, the rule is not absolute in any sense. Counsel does not have to take every position and make every argument that the client requests. See United States v. Dawes, 874 F.2d 746, 748 (10th Cir.1989) (per curiam) ("There is no right to counsel who will blindly follow a defendant's instructions."). Requiring a lawyer to argue at the direction of one who may be mentally incompetent--that is, one who seems unable to comprehend the nature of the proceedings against him--serves neither the individual client nor the truth-seeking process. See Brennan v. Blankenship, 472 F.Supp. 149, 156 (W.D.Va.1979) ("Under any professional standard, it is improper for counsel to blindly rely on the statement of a criminal client whose reasoning abilities are highly suspect.").
Though this is an issue of first impression in our circuit,3 the appellate opinions that have touched on it all imply that the criminal lawyer's obligation to advocate the positions of his client is dependent on the client being mentally competent to stand trial. See, e.g., Alvord v. Wainwright, 725 F.2d 1282, 1289 (11th Cir.1984) ("[G]iven [the defendant's] competency, [the attorney] was ethically bound to follow the client's wishes." (emphasis added)). In Clanton v. Bair, 826 F.2d 1354 (4th Cir.1987), the court found that defense counsel who respected his client's refusal to submit to a psychiatric evaluation had not rendered ineffective assistance of counsel. The court said:
This case highlights the fact that in addition to their duties as counselors, attorneys are also officers of the courts. The Constitution prohibits a court from trying defendants who are mentally incompetent. See Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 378, 86 S.Ct. 836, 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966). Of all the actors in a trial, defense counsel has the most intimate association with the defendant. Therefore, the defendant's lawyer is not only allowed to raise the competency issue, but, because of the importance of the prohibition on trying those who cannot understand proceedings against them, she has a professional duty to do so when appropriate. See, e.g., Vogt v. United States, 88 F.3d 587, 592 (8th Cir.1996) (" 'The failure of trial counsel to request a competency hearing where there was evidence raising a substantial doubt about a petitioner's competence to stand trial may constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.' ") (quoting Speedy v. Wyrick, 702 F.2d 723, 726 (8th Cir.1983)). In fact, defendants often contend in collateral proceedings that their trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to request a competency hearing. See, e.g., Clanton, 826 F.2d at 1357-58.
Counsel's actions in this case were fully consistent with the American Bar Association Standards, which are a guide in determining reasonable professional behavior. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052. The pertinent standard states:
For the above reasons, the defendant's disagreement with the public defender's evaluation of his competence did not trigger the withdrawal procedure of Standard 7-4.2. Furthermore, considering the seriousness of the offense with which the defendant was charged, see 18 U.S.C. § 115(b)(1)(4), there was no conflict between the defense counsel's duty to serve his client's best interest and to raise the competency issue. Both duties required him to raise the competency issue with the court. Thus, the conflict-of-interest language in Standard 7-4.2 is inapposite. Nothing else in the ABA Standards or the constitutional decisions bar defense counsel from arguing--or, as in this case, merely presenting testimony on--the point she was required to raise. See Hull v. Freeman, 932 F.2d 159, 169 (3d Cir.1991) ("[W]e think it axiomatic that the desire of a defendant whose mental faculties are in doubt to be found competent does not absolve counsel of his or her independent professional responsibility to put the government to its proof at a competency hearing when the case for competency is in serious question."), overruling on other grounds recognized in Caswell v. Ryan, 953 F.2d 853 (3d Cir.1992); Bundy v. Dugger, 816 F.2d 564, 566 n. 2 (11th Cir.1987) ("If defense counsel suspects that the defendant is unable to consult with him with a reasonable degree of rational understanding, he cannot blindly accept his client's demand that his competency not be challenged.") (citation and quotation marks omitted).
Finally, the defendant argues that the evidence does not support the district court's finding that the defendant was mentally incompetent to stand trial. Competency to stand trial is a factual determination that can be set aside only if it is clearly erroneous. See United States v. Crews, 781 F.2d 826, 833 (10th Cir.1986) (per curiam). In order for a defendant to be competent to stand trial, he must have "sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding," and also a "rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him." Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 402, 80 S.Ct. 788, 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960) (per curiam). "In making a determination of competency, the district court may rely on a number of factors, including medical opinion and the court's observation of the defendant's comportment." United States v. Nichols, 56 F.3d 403, 411 (2d Cir.1995).
I would hold that at the critical hearing Mr. Boigegrain was entitled to assistance of counsel to function in accord with the constitutional requirement that "counsel acts in the role of an advocate in behalf of his client, as opposed to that of amicus curiae." Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Here that critical element was missing--there was no assistance by counsel to defendant to present his opposition to the commitment order.
It is clear that "the accused has the ultimate authority to make certain fundamental decisions regarding the case, as to whether to plead guilty, waive a jury, testify in his or her own behalf, or take an appeal." See Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 751, 103 S.Ct. 3308, 77 L.Ed.2d 987 (1983). Additionally, "with some limitations, a defendant may elect to act as his or her own advocate," id. (citing Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975)), although Barnes recognized that there is no constitutional duty resting on counsel assigned to prosecute a criminal appeal to raise every nonfrivolous issue requested by a defendant, id at 754, 103 S.Ct. 3308. Although most other decisions are the responsibility of counsel, after consultation with the client where appropriate and feasible, Standard 4-5.2(b), ABA Standards for Criminal Justice Prosecution Function and Defense Function (3d ed.1993), the Court has never held that the fundamental decisions reserved to the client are limited to those noted above. Indeed, the courts of appeals, including this court, have recognized other critical decisions as reserved for the client.
For example, in Larson v. Tansy, 911 F.2d 392 (10th Cir.1990), we reversed a criminal conviction because the defendant had not personally waived the right to be present during instruction of the jury, closing arguments and the rendering of the verdict, nor had defendant waived his right to be present by remaining silent when defense counsel purportedly waived the right. In Carter v. Sowders, 5 F.3d 975, 980-82 (6th Cir.1993), the court held that counsel could not, without the accused's consent, waive the right to be present at a videotaped deposition which was to be used at trial. It has also been held that an accused must personally waive trial of the case to a jury of less than twelve. United States v. Guerrero-Peralta, 446 F.2d 876 (9th Cir.1971). Several courts have held that a competent defendant may choose to forgo a defense of insanity. E.g., United States v. Marble, 940 F.2d 1543, 1547 (D.C.Cir.1991); Foster v. Strickland, 707 F.2d 1339, 1343 (11th Cir.1983); Frendak v. United States, 408 A.2d 364, 381 & n. 31 (D.C.Ct.App.1979); see also Dean v. Superintendent, Clinton Correctional Facility, 93 F.3d 58, 61 & n. 1 (2d Cir.1996) (citing cases). The Frendak court reasoned that the philosophy of North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970), and Faretta mandated that an accused "be permitted to make fundamental decisions about the course of the proceedings," 408 A.2d at 376, which were held to include whether to raise the defense of insanity at the time of the offense.
At this point, it is helpful to recall the reasons that led the en banc court to hold that this appeal could proceed in the first instance. In United States v. Boigegrain, 122 F.3d 1345 (10th Cir.1997) (en banc ) (Boigegrain I ), nine judges of this court joined a per curiam opinion stating that a "defendant must not be left without recourse to appellate review where there is an immediate and significant loss of personal liberty." 122 F.3d at 1349. I would add that here defendant's immediate and significant loss of personal liberty was not the only substantial interest at stake for the defendant at the hearing where the determination was made whether a commitment order under § 4241(d) should be entered like that on appeal. There are several reasons, any or all of which may be of importance to an accused in a given case and any or all of which may have been regarded as important by Mr. Boigegrain in this case, for wishing to avoid a finding of incompetence to stand trial:
Other courts confronted with similar problems in the context of deciding whether to permit a defendant to forgo an insanity defense have resorted to the appointment of amicus counsel when necessary to ensure that arguments both for and against the defendant's desired course of action are presented. See Marble, 940 F.2d at 1544; Frendak, 408 A.2d at 368-69, 380. The practice in the Ninth Circuit appears to be that any time a substantial conflict develops between counsel and a defendant, the trial court inquires into the matter to ensure that the attorney can still effectively represent the client. See, e.g., Brown v. Craven, 424 F.2d 1166, 1169-70 (9th Cir.1970). Where proper representation requires, substitute or "conflict counsel" should be appointed to present defendant's position. United States v. Gonzalez, 113 F.3d 1026, 1028-29 (9th Cir.1997); Mason ex rel. Marson v. Vasquez, 5 F.3d 1220, 1223-24 (9th Cir.1993); United States v. Wadsworth, 830 F.2d 1500, 1510-11 (9th Cir.1987); United States v. Kaczynski, No. CR-S-259, 1998 WL 15049, at * 3 (E.D.Cal. January 9, 1998). Based on a parallel rationale, I would hold that because of the important interests at stake in the competency determination, where it is apparent that the defendant desires to resist a finding of incompetency, the district judge should appoint new counsel to assist the defendant in presenting his position.
In sum, I would not affirm the commitment order as the majority opinion does, but vacate it as constitutionally flawed. I would hold that it was a denial of due process to accept as conclusive, on defendant's position, defense counsel's decision to raise his client's incompetency. When the defendant elected to defend his competence and oppose a commitment order, his attorney should have sought, and should have been permitted, to withdraw. The Court has rejected as impermissible a procedure in which "counsel is not an assistant, but a master." Faretta, 422 U.S. at 820, 95 S.Ct. 2525. When the defendant elected to defend his competence and oppose the commitment order, defendant was entitled to the assistance of counsel in presenting his position. New counsel, like the substitute or conflict counsel discussed above, should be appointed so that the defendant would have the assistance of counsel to present his position.
Leaving the defendant alone with only an attorney suggesting, contrary to the position defendant elected to take, that he was incompetent denied him due process under the Fifth Amendment and assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment. Because defendant was completely without assistance of counsel at the crucial stage of the competency hearing, I would hold that the error is structural and reversible per se. See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 629-30, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993) (deprivation of the right of counsel cited as example of structural error requiring "automatic reversal"). Accordingly, I respectfully dissent in part and concur in part.
Determining whether an accused is competent to stand trial is a three step process. See generally United States v. Deters, 143 F.3d 577, 579-80 (10th Cir.1998) (reviewing the process). First, if there is "reasonable cause to believe that the defendant may presently be suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent," the court may order a psychiatric or psychological examination of the defendant. 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a). At the second stage, the court uses the psychological report and conducts a hearing to determine whether the defendant is competent. If the defendant is not found to be competent, the court must order the defendant hospitalized for up to four months to determine whether the defendant will become competent in the foreseeable future. The court may order additional hospitalization if it finds there is a substantial probability that within the additional time, the defendant will become competent. See id. § 4241(d). At the third stage, after the specified period of confinement has expired, the court determines whether the defendant is competent and thus ready to stand trial. If still found not to be competent, the defendant must be released unless the court finds that he presents a substantial risk of harm to others. See id. §§ 4241(d), 4246; United States v. Steil, 916 F.2d 485, 486-87 (8th Cir.1990)
We have found only one line of cases, in California, addressing the precise issue before us in this case. See People v. Harris, 14 Cal.App.4th 984, 994, 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 92, 98 (Cal.Ct.App.1993) ("We agree with the basic holding in Bolden that defense counsel does not provide ineffective assistance of counsel or violate the defendant's due process rights by seeking to prove the defendant's incompetence over the defendant's objections.")