Opinion ID: 3065109
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether Nash Provided Sufficient Evidence of

Text: Incompetence to Warrant a Competency Determination In Rohan, because the district court’s prior determination that the petitioner was incompetent was not disputed, we NASH v. RYAN 13201 assumed that the petitioner was incompetent. 334 F.3d at 807 n.2. As a result, we left unresolved several important issues, including “what showing a petitioner must make to warrant a competency determination” and “whether the standard [for competence to pursue habeas relief] is the same as the standard for competence to stand trial.” Id. at 819 n.11. Here, in contrast, the State challenges not only Nash’s right to competence, but the allegations of incompetence. That is, the State contends that even if the right to competence discussed above extends to an appeal, and even if Nash’s claims may potentially benefit from rational communication with his counsel, Nash (1) has failed to proffer sufficient evidence of incompetence to warrant a competency determination; and (2) by his failure to request a Rohan determination in the district court, has waived his opportunity to do so. We disagree. We conclude that Nash has made a threshold showing of incompetence that, at this preliminary stage, warrants a competency determination under any of the various standards we have employed to assess evidence of incompetency. Further, we hold that Nash’s failure to seek a competency determination in the district court does not foreclose our consideration of his motion.

At trial, competence is defined as the ability to understand the proceedings and to assist counsel in preparing a defense. Miles v. Stainer, 108 F.3d 1109, 1112 (9th Cir. 1997). A competent defendant possesses “sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.” Rohan, 334 F.3d at 808 (quoting Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348, 354 (1996)); see also Indiana v. Edwards, 128 S. Ct. 2379, 2383 (2008) (noting distinction between defendants competent to be tried and 13202 NASH v. RYAN defendants competent to defend themselves). As Rohan, Holmes and the above discussion make clear, competency to pursue federal habeas relief in a death penalty case requires that the petitioner possess essentially the same mental capacity that renders him competent to stand trial: the ability to understand and communicate rationally with counsel when necessary. See Rohan, 334 F.3d at 813; see also Holmes, 506 F.3d at 579; Mae C. Quinn, Reconceptualizing Competence: An Appeal, 66 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 259, 301-02 (2009) (discussing Rohan and Holmes‘s approach to competence in postconviction proceedings). With these fundamental principles in mind, we turn briefly to the evidence we have deemed sufficient to warrant a competency determination in similar contexts.
At trial, the right to competence generally requires that a motion for a competency determination be granted when “reasonable cause” exists to believe that the defendant is incompetent. See 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a) (2006); see also United States v. Fernandez, 388 F.3d 1199, 1250-51 (9th Cir. 2004); United States v. Brown, 943 F.2d 35, 35 (9th Cir. 1991). Many factors, including history of mental illness and treatment, a finding of prior insanity, memory problems, erratic behavior, variety and quantity of medications, and attempts at suicide have been considered by courts determining whether a competency hearing should have been granted. See McMurtrey v. Ryan, 539 F.3d 1112, 1118 (9th Cir. 2008); Morris v. United States, 414 F.2d 258, 259 (9th Cir. 1969). For example, in Rohan, the petitioner suffered from a delusional disorder; in Holmes, the court remanded the case based on “affidavits presented by . . . counsel suggesting [petitioner’s] mental condition had deteriorated.” Holmes, 506 F.3d at 577. We are satisfied that Nash has presented sufficient evidence of incompetence to warrant a competency determination under any of the various standards we have articulated. NASH v. RYAN 13203 First, according to a psychiatric evaluation conducted by Dr. Barry Morenz, Nash—like the petitioner in Rohan— suffers from a delusional disorder which leads him to experience auditory hallucinations, as well as grandiose and paranoid delusions. Nash has also been diagnosed with personality disorder; according to Morenz, he is “not competent to proceed with his appeals” because he “is significantly impaired in his ability to rationally and meaningfully assist his attorneys . . . .” Moreover, although Dr. Morenz opined that “[t]reatment with antipsychotic and memory-enhancing medication . . . may provide some benefit to . . . Mr. Nash[,]” he further opined that “[e]ven with these interventions, there is not a substantial probability that he can be restored to competency.” Second, in addition to Dr. Morenz’s diagnoses and opinion, Nash’s habeas counsel has filed a sealed declaration outlining her own difficulties in communicating with Nash. Her observations are consistent with Dr. Morenz’s, detailing the ways in which Nash’s delusional disorder and memory problems substantially impede his ability to rationally communicate with her regarding his personal history and other potentially critical aspects of his appeal. Dr. Morenz’s diagnoses and opinion, and the declaration presented by Nash’s counsel “suggest[ ] that his mental condition ha[s] deteriorated.” See Holmes, 506 F.3d at 577 (describing circumstances that warranted limited remand for competency determination). At this preliminary stage, therefore, Nash has presented sufficient evidence of incompetence to warrant a competency determination.
Last, the State contends that because Nash never sought a competency determination under Rohan in the district court, he has waived the issue and cannot now raise it on appeal. See 13204 NASH v. RYAN Fry v. Melaragno, 939 F.2d 832, 834 (9th Cir. 1991), We disagree. First, although the limited record reveals that Nash’s mental and physical health have been an issue with which habeas counsel are familiar, Dr. Morenz’s recent report notes increasing cognitive decline and recent memory failure. While Dr. Morenz’s report does not fully explain why counsel did not seek an earlier determination of Nash’s mental incompetency, it provides context for counsel’s decision to seek a competency determination in this court: ninety-three-year-old Nash’s competency continues to decline. More importantly, although the State argues that Nash should be barred from raising an issue on appeal that he did not raise in the district court, Nash’s motion for a competency determination does not fit within that circumstance. Nash does not raise the issue of competence to obtain reversal of the district court’s judgment. Rather, his counsel raise the issue because it does not appear that Nash is now capable of communicating rationally with them and they seek a limited remand for a factual determination of his competence. The limited nature of the relief sought further supports our conclusion that Nash’s failure to seek relief in the district court under Rohan should not preclude consideration of Nash’s motion. The ultimate question of how next to proceed must be addressed by this court after the district court makes a competency determination and returns the case to this court for consideration of the merits of Nash’s claim. In sum, Nash’s rapidly deteriorating mental condition leads us to conclude that the precise issue we consider here— whether Nash is competent to pursue the pending appeal of the district court’s denial of his habeas petition—is not subject to the waiver rule invoked by the State. Moreover, because the competency determination will afford the State the opportunity to offer all relevant evidence and fully litigate the issue of Nash’s competence, we are satisfied that our deciNASH v. RYAN 13205 sion in no way contravenes the policies underlying the waiver rule. See Hormel v. Helvering, 312 U.S. 552, 556 (1941) (explaining that the importance of the waiver rule lies in our “procedural scheme[‘s] contemplat[ion] that parties shall come to issue in the trial forum vested with authority to determine questions of fact . . . [i]n order that parties may have the opportunity to offer all the evidence they believe relevant . . . [and] that litigants may not be surprised on appeal by final decision there of issues upon which they have had no opportunity to introduce evidence”). We therefore reject the State’s contentions to the contrary. For all of the above reasons, we grant Nash’s motion for a limited remand. We remand this case to the district court to conduct a competency determination. The court may conduct such proceedings as it deems appropriate to reach a fair and prompt determination of Nash’s competence, consistent with the views expressed in this order. The panel shall retain jurisdiction over this appeal. MOTION GRANTED and REMANDED. PRINTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS BY THOMSON REUTERS/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted © 2009 Thomson Reuters/West.