Opinion ID: 787859
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: summary of davis's substantive incompetence claim

Text: Davis's evidence meets the relatively low threshold that mandates an evidentiary hearing. To all appearances Davis acted irrationally during the sentencing phase. See Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 180, 95 S.Ct. 896, 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975) (a defendant's irrational behavior and demeanor at trial are factors to be considered in assessing competence); Torres, 223 F.3d at 1109 (stating that defendant's unusual and self-defeating behavior in the courtroom suggested that an inquiry into competence was required); cf. Williams, 306 F.3d at 703 (finding it significant that Williams did not evidence any bizarre or irrational behavior). He believed he was paralyzed when he wasn't; he insisted on self-destructive behavior, including his refusal to sit at counsel table; and he turned down medicine that might have helped him because, according to Dr. Vicary, he was so impaired at that point that he did not understand that medication would help him. Compare Torres, 223 F.3d at 1109-10 (defendant insisted on wearing jailhouse blues; threatened to assault his attorney; insisted, after being ordered shackled, to be handcuffed as well; and continually disrupted the trial). It is also clear that Davis was not communicating well (if at all) with his attorneys; a defendant's competence turns on whether he has the ability to communicate with counsel in helping prepare an effective defense. Odle v. Woodford, 238 F.3d 1084, 1089 (9th Cir.2001). Finally, the declarations signed by Drs. Vicary and Latz raise at least a substantial doubt as to Davis's competency. Boag, 769 F.2d at 1343.