Opinion ID: 2743618
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Competency During Trial

Text: A defendant is deemed competent to stand trial if he “has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and . . . has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.” Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 402 (1960) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted). Once a defendant is deemed competent and a trial has begun, a trial court must “sua sponte inquire into a defendant’s competency if a reasonable judge would be expected to have a bona fide doubt as to the defendant’s competence. A bona fide doubt exists if there is substantial evidence of incompetence.” Amaya-Ruiz v. Stewart, 121 F.3d 486, 489 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Preston, 751 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc). We have recognized a high bar for what constitutes a “bona fide doubt” of competence. See Williams v. Woodford, 384 F.3d 567, 606 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[T]here is no constitutional prohibition against the trial and conviction of a defendant who fails to pay attention in court—whether out of indifference, fear, confusion, boredom, or sleepiness—unless that defendant cannot understand the nature of the proceedings against him or adequately assist counsel in conducting a defense.”) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted); de Kaplany v. Enomoto, 540 F.2d CLARK V. ARNOLD 33 975, 978–79 (9th Cir. 1976) (holding counsel was not ineffective when he did not seek a hearing on defendant’s competency where defendant made isolated outburst and psychiatric testimony characterized him as “severely disturbed”).
On appeal, Clark argues that his counsel was ineffective for failing to call for another competency hearing after Middlebrook noticed Clark did not seem to be paying attention. Clark points to two pieces of evidence to support his contention. First, he argues that while the state court deemed him competent to stand trial in May 2003, his expert, Dr. Susan Parrish, issued another report in July 2003, shortly before the start of trial, in which she reiterated her concerns that Clark was incompetent. Second, Middlebrook testified during the state post-conviction relief proceedings that he knew Clark was taking his Haldol injections but not taking a second medication called Cogentin and that he noticed Clark was not scribbling nonsensically as often as he used to and was putting his head on the counsel’s table. Middlebrook further testified that he believed a reasonable attorney would have requested Clark’s reevaluation. The State argues that Dr. Parrish had never believed Clark was competent and her July report did not address whether Clark’s lack of cooperation with his lawyers was volitional. It criticizes the test Parrish administered, referred to as the MacCAT-CA, as irrelevant, since only one part of the test—the “understanding section”—is relevant to whether a defendant understands the proceedings. It also argues that Middlebrook’s after-the-fact personal impressions are insufficient to demonstrate ineffective assistance. 34 CLARK V. ARNOLD The State has the better of the argument here. First, as the Arizona court pointed out, “[f]rom the beginning Dr. Parrish never found [Clark] competent,” and thus her July 2003 report “was completely consistent with her opinion known to all parties.” Three mental health experts—Drs. DiBacco, Kassell, and Jasinski—had disagreed with Dr. Parrish, and the trial court had found Clark competent. It was not ineffective for “Mr. Middlebrook [to have] relied on the experts’ opinions even though personally he disagreed with them and proceeded to trial.” Moreover, Dr. Parrish’s July 2003 report was inconclusive. Dr. Parrish found that “Clark’s scores with regard to a factual understanding of the legal proceedings associated with adjudication placed him in the bottom 20% of defendants considered competent and slightly above the mean for defendants who were confirmed to be incompetent.” His score “placed him on the borderline between Minimal or no impairment and Mild impairment.” And, the Arizona court found that even though Middlebrook thought Clark was not competent to stand trial, counsel later admitted that Clark “was competent at least early on in the beginning of trial.” Second, Middlebrook was not ineffective because he acted on his concern for Clark’s mental health when he told the court he had doubts that Clark was receiving his medication. The court said it would contact the jail to make sure they were aware of a court order requiring he be given his injections, even if involuntarily. After-the-fact secondguessing about what Middlebrook should have done without “substantial evidence” of incompetence is not required, Amaya-Ruiz, 121 F.3d at 489, and does not comport with Strickland’s restriction on adjudicating by hindsight. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689; see also Edwards v. Lamarque, CLARK V. ARNOLD 35 475 F.3d 1121, 1125 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (“The trial court need not accept a self-proclaimed assertion by trial counsel that trial counsel’s performance was inadequate.”).
With regard to prejudice,9 to succeed, Clark has to show not only that the trial court would have ordered a reevaluation, but also that there was “a reasonable probability that the defendant would have been found incompetent to stand trial had the issue been raised and fully considered.” Stanley v. Cullen, 633 F.3d 852, 862 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Jermyn v. Horn, 266 F.3d 257, 283 (3d Cir. 2001)); see also Strickland, 466 U.S. at 696. In light of the lengthy competency process, the reports of several doctors attesting to Clark’s competence, the absence of any new information in Dr. Parrish’s July 2003 report, and the judge’s order that Clark be forcibly medicated, it is not reasonably probable that the trial court would have granted a second competency hearing and deemed Clark incompetent. See Hibbler v. Benedetti, 693 F.3d 1140, 1150 (9th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 1262 (2013); Stanley, 633 F.3d at 863; see also Jermyn, 266 F.3d at 287 (holding there was no reasonable probability court would have found defendant insane). Accordingly, it was not contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, Strickland for the state court to determine that Clark’s trial counsel was not ineffective when they did not request a reevaluation of Clark’s competency during trial. 9 We address the prejudice prong de novo since the state court did not reach it. See Rompilla, 545 U.S. at 390. 36 CLARK V. ARNOLD