Source: http://al.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20140904_0001459.MAL.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2018-05-28 01:28:07
Document Index: 265963386

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 4241', '§ 4241', '§ 3552', '§ 3553', '§ 3553', '§ 3552', '§ 3552', '§ 3552', '§ 3552', '§ 3552', '§ 3552', '§ 4241', '§ 4241', '§ 3552']

WILLIAM CHRISTOPHER MOODY.
Defendant William Christopher Moody was found guilty of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine, possession with intent to distribute and distribution of methamphetamine, and unlawful use of a communication facility. This matter is now before the court on the government's motion for a competency evaluation.' The motion will be granted. The court also orders a presentence study' on Moody's mental health.
"At any time after the commencement of a prosecution for an offense and prior to the sentencing of the defendant, ... the defendant or the attorney for the Government may file a motion for a hearing to determine the mental competency of the defendant." 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a). "The court shall grant" such motion "if there is reasonable cause to believe that the defendant may presently be suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that he is unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or to assist properly in his defense." Id . The court may order a defendant to be committed for a reasonable period to the custody of the Attorney General to be placed in a suitable Bureau of Prisons facility for a competency examination. 18 U.S.C. §§ 4241(b); 4247(b).
In this case, the court concludes that there is reasonable cause to believe Moody may not be competent. Specifically, Moody was recently diagnosed with moderate severity dementia and impaired executive functioning. While defense counsel contends that Moody is competent, the court finds that such diagnoses give reasonable cause to believe Moody may not have been competent to stand trial or may not currently be competent for sentencing. The court will, therefore, order the Bureau of Prisons to do a competency evaluation of Moody, and, after receipt of the evaluation, the court will hold a hearing.
II. Presentence Study
During a conference call held on the record on September 3, 2014, the court said that it would order a mental-health evaluation for the purpose of assisting it in fashioning an appropriate sentence if Moody is found competent. This statement was made pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3552(b).
"Although district courts are no longer bound to follow the Sentencing Guidelines after United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), they still must consult the Guidelines and take them into account when sentencing defendants." United States v. Todd , 618 F.Supp.2d 1349, 1352-53 (M.D. Ala. 2009) (Thompson, J.). The court must calculate the applicable range of sentences recommended by the Guidelines. The court may then decide to impose a sentence outside of the Guidelines system, commonly known as a "variance."
The court is bound, however, to impose a sentence that is reasonable. The factors set for in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) guide the court's determination of the reasonableness of a sentence. Those factors are (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense; (2) the history and characteristics of the defendant; (3) the need for the sentence imposed to punish the offender, protect the public from the defendant, rehabilitate the defendant, deter others, and provide medical care; (4) the kinds of sentences available; (5) the sentencing range established by the Sentencing Guidelines; (6) any pertinent policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission; (7) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct; and (8) the need for restitution. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
U.S. Probation officers routinely prepare presentence investigation reports to assist the court during sentencing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3552(a). However, § 3552(b) also authorizes the court to order a "study of the defendant" if it "desires more information than is otherwise available to it as a basis for determining the sentence to be imposed." 18 U.S.C. § 3552(b).
While, ordinarily, a § 3552(b) study "shall be conducted in the local community by qualified consultants, " the statute also authorizes the court to order that the study be done by the Bureau of Prisons upon the finding of "a compelling reason." 18 U.S.C. § 3552(b). In this case, the court finds that the fact that Moody will already be committed to Bureau of Prisons custody for the purposes of a competency evaluation constitutes a compelling reason to order that the § 3552(b) study be conducted by the Bureau of Prisons as well.
Accordingly, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 4241(b) and 4247, it is ORDERED that the government's motion for a competency evaluation' of defendant William Christopher Moody (doc. no. 671) is granted.
Furthermore, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 4241(b) and § 3552, it is ORDERED that defendant Moody shall also ...