Opinion ID: 2982177
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Competency to Proceed Pro Se

Text: Abdulmutallab asserts the same facts mentioned above to claim that the district court should have questioned his competency to proceed pro se. See supra, II.A. The Government rebuts this contention, noting that while Abdulmutallab waived his right to counsel, he had the assistance of standby counsel at all times and was therefore “represented” throughout the proceedings. The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants the right to counsel. U.S. Const. Amend. VI. It is undisputed that criminal defendants also have a constitutional right to waive the right to counsel and choose self-representation, even when a court believes that self-representation is not advisable. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 807 (1975). Any waiver of the right to counsel must be knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made. Iowa v. Tovar, 541 U.S. 77, 87–88 (2004). When there is reason for a court to doubt a defendant’s competency, a court should “make a competency determination before finding the waiver [of the right to counsel] to be valid.” United States v. Ross, 703 F.3d 856, 867 (6th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). This court reviews under an abuse of discretion standard the question of whether there was reasonable cause to question a defendant’s competence before the district court accepted waiver of counsel. Id. a competency examination, he concluded that such a course of action would be counterproductive. Accordingly, we hold that Abdulmutallab’s statement regarding his position on whether a competency exam was necessary does not support a finding of doubt as to Abdulmutallab’s competency. 6 Abdulmutallab argues in his reply brief that other actions indicated that he was not competent to stand trial. Abdulmutallab argues that his demeanor at trial was not “normal and respectful,” and cites a portion of the sentencing hearing where he shouted “Allahu Akbar” or “God is great” a few times. R. 139, 02-16-12 Sent. Tr. at 40, PageID # 1244. However, as other courts have had defendants who shout religious incantations in court and found them to be competent, we hold that Abdulmutallab’s shouting “Allahu Akbar” signifies only his religious beliefs and is not indicative of his incompetency. See, e.g., United States v. Mitchell, 706 F. Supp. 2d 1148, 1195 (D. Utah 2010) (district court who handled the habeas petition of Elizabeth Smart’s kidnapper found that he was competent to stand trial despite the fact that he sang religious hymns in the courtroom). No. 12-1207 United States v. Abdulmutallab Page 14 We hold that the district court did not err in refusing to conduct a competency hearing prior to allowing Abdulmutallab to proceed pro se. As detailed above, neither Abdulmutallab’s behavior in the courtroom nor standby counsel’s motion for a competency examination raised sufficient doubt as to Abdulmutallab’s competency. See supra II.A. There was simply no cause to question Abdulmutallab’s competence at the time he waived his right to counsel and asked the district court to allow him to represent himself. Abdulmutallab was represented by the Federal Public Defender’s Office from December 26, 2009 until September 13, 2010, when he asserted his right to represent himself. None of the lawyers who had been representing Abdulmutallab for the nine months preceding his request to proceed pro se expressed any doubt about his competence. It was not until August 5, 2011, when Chambers filed his motion requesting a competency hearing, that Abdulmutallab’s competency was put into question. Abdulmutallab may have waived his right to counsel, but he did not prepare his defense alone. The district court insisted that Abdulmutallab be represented by standby counsel for the entire proceeding. Standby counsel actually undertook a majority of the representation, as evidenced by the fact that he wrote and filed most motions, examined all witnesses at the suppression hearing, and questioned all but one of the prospective jurors. Thus, while Abdulmutallab proceeded pro se, he was represented by legal counsel throughout the proceedings.7 See United States v. Ross, 703 F.3d 856, 871–73 (6th Cir. 2012) (finding that if standby counsel provided “meaningful adversarial testing” then defendant was not deprived of counsel). Ultimately, the district court observed Abdulmutallab’s behavior throughout the proceedings and did not find that his behavior brought his competency into question. R. 7 Abdulmutallab argues that the district court should have inquired about his competency when he chose to represent himself in a case where he was facing a mandatory life sentence even though he had never studied law, and had essentially no legal knowledge. However, this argument fails. In United States v. Back, this court addressed “defendant’s contention that seeking to proceed pro se, especially when confronted with serious charges, inherently raises the question of competency. As the Supreme Court has made clear, while a criminal defendant who proceeds pro se may, like any other pro se litigant, have a fool for a client, that does not mean that he or she is presumptively incompetent[.]” 307 F. App’x 876, 879 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing Godinez, 509 U.S. at 401 n.13). “While defendant’s decision may have been ill-advised, the district court did enough to ascertain that defendant was capable of understanding the consequences of his course of action.” Id. No. 12-1207 United States v. Abdulmutallab Page 15 116, 08-17-11 Mot. Tr. at 14, PageID # 761 (“I have to say, Mr. Chambers, that I’ve had the opportunity to interact with Mr. Abdulmutallab on a number of prior occasions in district court, that I’ve not had any sense that he does not understand the charges against him or that he is not able to assist you with this matter.”). The district court even stated that it recognized the pressures on Abdulmutallab as the case came closer to trial. Id. (“I understand that it’s stressful for any defendant moving toward a criminal trial in which he faces the kind of penalties that Mr. Abdulmutallab is facing, but I have not had any reason to question his competence to move forward in this case, nor to represent himself.”). Ultimately, the district court oversaw the progression of the case and observed Abdulmutallab on numerous occasions, and yet found no reasonable basis on which to order a competency hearing. There is simply no evidence to suggest that the district court should have questioned Abdulmutallab’s understanding of the consequences of his course of action. The district court did not err in not ordering a competency exam prior to allowing Abdulmutallab to waive his right to counsel. C. Suppression of Statements from University of Michigan Hospital Abdulmutallab argues that the district court erred in failing to suppress the statements he made during his time at the University of Michigan Hospital. Abdulmutallab states that his testimony at the hospital was compelled and therefore the Fifth Amendment prohibited the use of that testimony in trial. We will not address the merits of Abdulmutallab’s argument, as he waived any right to challenge the suppression of his statements when he entered the guilty plea. When a criminal defendant pleads guilty, “he may not thereafter raise independent claims relating to the deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea. He may only attack the voluntary and intelligent character of the guilty plea by showing that the advice he received from counsel was not within the standards [for effective assistance of counsel].” Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973). This court has held that a defendant who pleaded guilty may not appeal an adverse ruling on a pre-plea motion to suppress evidence “unless he has preserved the No. 12-1207 United States v. Abdulmutallab Page 16 right to do so by entering a conditional plea of guilty in compliance with Rule 11(a)(2).”8 United States v. Bell, 350 F.3d 534, 535 (6th Cir. 2003) (citation and internal quotations omitted). The facts are quite clear: Abdulmutallab pled guilty without a plea agreement, and without preserving his right to appeal the ruling on his suppression motion under Rule 11(a)(2). He did not seek the consent of the district court or the Government to preserve his right to appeal the ruling on his suppression motion. Accordingly, pursuant to Tollett v. Henderson and United States v. Bell, Abdulmutallab waived his right to raise this issue. D. Constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) Abdulmutallab argues that his convictions on Counts Two, Four, and Six must be reversed because, as applied to the facts of this case, Congress lacked authority under the Commerce Clause to enact 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Abdulmutallab argues that the statute is unconstitutional, because there is no requirement that the “use and carrying,” “possession,” or “crime of violence” be connected in any way to interstate commerce. This court reviews challenges to a claim that Congress exceeded its constitutional power in enacting a statute de novo. United States v. Rose, 522 F.3d 710, 716–17 (6th Cir. 2008). An as-applied challenge consists of a challenge to the statute’s application with respect to the party before the court. Amelkin v. McClure, 205 F.3d 293, 296 (6th Cir. 2000). At issue in this case is Section 924(c), which regulates activity involving the “use and carrying” and “possession” of a “destructive device” in connection with a “crime of violence.” The “crime of violence” must be one “for which the person may be prosecuted in a court of the United States.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). 8 Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(a)(2) (2012) provides: With the consent of the court and the government, a defendant may enter a conditional plea of guilty or nolo contendere, reserving in writing the right to have an appellate court review an adverse determination of a specified pretrial motion. A defendant who prevails on appeal may then withdraw the plea. No. 12-1207 United States v. Abdulmutallab Page 17 Title 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)9 is constitutional as-applied to the facts of this case. The Sixth Circuit dealt with an as-applied Commerce Clause challenge in United States v. Ricketts, 317 F.3d 540 (6th Cir. 2003). In Ricketts, this Court held that analysis of whether § 924(c) is a proper exercise of congressional power under the Commerce Clause must not focus on § 924(c) as a “free standing statute[],” but rather must focus on the underlying crime that § 924(c) punishes. Id. at 543. In Ricketts, the underlying crime was a “drug conspiracy [which] d[id] substantially affect interstate commerce.” Id. This Court upheld the conviction on the basis that § 924(c) was constitutional based on the underlying crime, a drug conspiracy, which was properly within Congress’s power to regulate. Accordingly, the test for whether 924(c) is constitutional is whether the underlying crime substantially affects interstate commerce. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). All of Abdulmutallab’s 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)’s charges substantially affect interstate commerce. Count Two, the first § 924(c) charge, was tied to Count One, which charged conspiracy to commit an act of terrorism transcending national boundaries, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2332b(a)(1) and 2332b(a)(2). 18 U.S.C. §§ 2332b(a)(1) includes the element of use of a facility of interstate or foreign commerce. The Supreme Court has made clear that statutes are valid where they regulate the instrumentalities of commerce, in this case, protecting civil aircraft of the United States. See Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146, 150 (1971). Count Four, the second § 924(c) charge, was tied to Count Three, which charged attempted murder within the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1113 and 49 U.S.C. § 46506. Sections 1113 and 46506 involve a civil aircraft of the United States. The Supreme Court has upheld the regulation of vehicles used in interstate commerce, as well as the regulation of instrumentalities and channels of interstate commerce. See Southern R. Co. v. United States, 222 U.S. 20, 26–27 (1911); see also United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 558 (1995). 9 Section 924(c) is a penalty provision, requiring enhanced punishment for offenses involving firearms and destructive devices in furtherance of a crime of violence. Section 924(c) therefore must be tied to a crime of violence, in order for the enhanced punishments to take effect. In this case, there are three charges tied to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). No. 12-1207 United States v. Abdulmutallab Page 18 Count Six, the final charge under § 924(c), was tied to Count Five, which charged willfully placing a destructive device upon and in proximity to a civil aircraft which was used and operated in interstate, overseas, and foreign air commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 32(a)(2). Section 32(a)(2) also involves a civil aircraft of the United States. The Supreme Court in Perez v. United States, explicitly mentioned this statute as falling within Congress’s Commerce Clause authority. 402 U.S. at 150 (“The Commerce Clause reaches, in the main, three categories of problems . . . . Second, protection of the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, as for example, the destruction of an aircraft (18 U.S.C. § 32), or persons or things in commerce.”). All of the underlying offenses for which Abdulmutallab was convicted are constitutional under the Commerce Clause. Accordingly, we conclude that all three charges under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) were constitutionally enacted by Congress. E. Constitutionality of Abdulmutallab’s Life Sentence Under the Eighth Amendment Abdulmutallab argues that the “evolving standards of decency” prohibit the imposition of four sentences of life imprisonment where no one (other than himself) was physically injured and where most passengers believed that the detonation was the result of firecrackers. The Government responds by citing the simple fact that Abdulmutallab attempted to blow up an airplane with 289 passengers on behalf of Al Qaeda. The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that “[e]xcessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” U.S. Const. Amend. VIII. An Eighth Amendment challenge to a sentence is a question of law, reviewed de novo. United States v. Jones, 569 F.3d 569, 573 (6th Cir. 2009). A court, when reviewing a sentence, must give “substantial deference to the broad authority that legislatures necessarily possess in determining the types and limits of punishments for crimes, as well as the discretion that trial courts possess in sentencing convicted criminals.” Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 290 (1983). The Supreme Court has identified three factors to consider whether a sentence was so grossly disproportionate that it violated the Eighth Amendment: (1) “the gravity of the No. 12-1207 United States v. Abdulmutallab Page 19 offense and the harshness of the penalty”; (2) “the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction”; and (3) “the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions.” Id. at 292. However, a court does not need to reach the second and third factors in all cases, that analysis is “appropriate only in the rare case in which a threshold comparison of the crime committed and the sentence imposed leads to an inference of gross disproportionality.” Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1005 (1991) (Kennedy, J., concurring). When evaluating the gravity of the offense, a court may consider the “harm caused or threatened to the victim or society, and the culpability of the offender.” Solem, 463 U.S. at 292. In Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. at 996–1009, Justice Kennedy, in a concurrence, articulated a “narrow proportionality principle.” The Sixth Circuit has adopted this principle. Jones, 569 F.3d at 573. Under this approach, “there is no requirement of strict proportionality; the eighth amendment is offended only by an extreme disparity between crime and sentence.” Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted). Abdulmutallab’s sentence does not constitute “cruel and unusual” punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The indictment charged three violations of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c): Counts Two, Four, and Six. Because of the statutory framework, Counts Four and Six carried mandatory sentences for life imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(C)(ii) (“In the case of a second . . . conviction under this subsection, the person shall—if the firearm involved is a . . . destructive device . . . be sentenced to imprisonment for life.”). Count One (conspiracy to commit an act of terrorism transcending national boundaries) and Count Seven (attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction) each was punishable by a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, which the district court, in its discretion, imposed. On appeal, Abdulmutallab challenges both the mandatory and discretionary sentences as being “cruel and unusual” within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment. The facts of this case are not ones in which comparison of the penalty of the crime to the punishment raises a question that the punishment is “grossly No. 12-1207 United States v. Abdulmutallab Page 20 disproportionate.” As the district court stated on the record at Abdulmutallab’s sentencing: [T]he nature and circumstances of the offenses are not in dispute. Defendant attempted to blow up an airplane with 289 people on board and he failed to accomplish this objective only because of a technical problem with the bomb. Defendant, by his own statements, was deeply committed to his mission, seeking out and finding al Qaeda and Anwar Al-Awlaki, volunteering for a martyrdom mission and then becoming involved in planning and training for a significant amount of time. R. 139, 02-16-12 Sent. Tr. at 51–52, PageID # 1255–56. The district court also found Abdulmutallab to be a threat to society. Id. at 54, PageID # 1258. Thus, by his own words, defendant has shown that he continues to desire to harm the United States and its citizens, and that he views it as his religious obligation to do so. I believe that the defendant has stated and it is clear that he has enormous motivation to carry out another terrorist attack but that he lacks the capability of doing that because of his incarceration. This Court has no ability to control the defendant’s motivation, which does appear to be unchanged. However, I can control defendant’s opportunity to act on those intentions [by imposing life sentence]. Id. at 54–55, PageID # 1258–59. The “evolving standards of decency” do not require a lesser sentence. The district court’s conclusions were correct. The discretionary life sentences (Counts One and Seven) are constitutional, as they are fully proportional with the crimes, especially in light of the fact of Abdulmutallab’s desire to engage in future terrorist activity. Furthermore, this court has held that an Eighth Amendment challenge must fail if a defendant receives a sentence within the guideline range, when the guideline range contemplates the gravity of the offense, which is what the district court imposed in this case. United States v. Herrick, 512 F. App’x 534, 538–39 (6th Cir. 2013). The mandatory life sentences (Counts Four and Six) are also constitutional. The analysis in No. 12-1207 United States v. Abdulmutallab Page 21 Harmelin10 controls. Harmelin, 501 U.S. at 996–1009 (1991). Abdulmutallab attempted to detonate a bomb on a plane with 289 passengers. He may have been the only person harmed, but that is only because his bomb failed to properly work. These facts, and the fact that Abdulmutallab’s sentence was within the guideline range and proportional, inform this Court that his sentence is not “cruel and unusual” punishment. F. Substantive Reasonableness of the Sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines Abdulmutallab argues that his life sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the nature and circumstances of his offense, namely that his offense resulted in no physical harm to anyone other than himself and that a sentence of life imprisonment for a young man in his early twenties is a harsh punishment for someone with no criminal history. Considering the fact that Abdulmutallab committed an act of terrorism, the Government argues that the district court properly considered the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1). This court reviews criminal sentences for both procedural and substantive reasonableness. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Sentences are reviewed under the deferential abuse of discretion standard. Id. When the sentence is within the range suggested by the Sentencing Guidelines, this court may apply a rebuttable presumption of substantive reasonableness. United States v. Anderson, 695 F.3d 390, 402 (6th Cir. 2012). A sentence is substantively unreasonable when the district court selects a sentence arbitrarily, bases the sentence on impermissible factors, or gives an unreasonable amount of weight to any pertinent factor. United States v. Cochrane, 702 F.3d 334, 345 (6th Cir. 2012) (internal quotations and citation omitted). Review for substantive reasonableness focuses on whether a sentence is adequate, but not “greater than necessary” to accomplish the sentencing goals identified by Congress in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). Id. (internal quotations and citation omitted). The substantive reasonableness 10 Harmelin involved a mandatory life sentence for possession of 650 grams of cocaine. Harmelin, 501 U.S. at 957. No. 12-1207 United States v. Abdulmutallab Page 22 inquiry “take[s] into account the totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the Guidelines range.” Id. (internal quotations and citation omitted). However, a statutorily required sentence is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Penney, 576 F.3d 297, 317 (6th Cir. 2009). We conclude that Abdulmutallab’s sentence is substantively reasonable under the Sentencing Guidelines. As the sentencing transcript makes clear, the district court considered all of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). The district court properly considered the nature and circumstances of the offense, the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, and the need to protect the public from further crimes. After weighing all of these factors, particularly the fact that Abdulmutallab committed an act of terrorism and communicated a desire to partake in future acts of terrorism should he not be imprisoned, the district court properly imposed life sentences. Abdulmutallab has not rebutted the presumption of substantive reasonableness by showing that the district court improperly weighed the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).