Opinion ID: 204352
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Hold a Competency Hearing Sua Sponte

Text: On appeal, Mateo argues that the district court erred by failing to inquire sua sponte into his competency during the plea hearing.3 A defendant has a due process right not to be tried or convicted while incompetent. Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 171-72, 95 S. Ct. 896, 903-04 (1975). A defendant is incompetent if he lacks “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.” Medina v. Singletary, 59 F.3d 1095, 1106 (11th Cir. 1995). The district court must sua sponte conduct a hearing to determine a defendant’s mental incompetence “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.” 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a). This Court has concluded that the trial court must sua sponte conduct a competency hearing when the information known to the district court is “sufficient to raise a bona fide doubt regarding the defendant’s 3 This Court reviews for an abuse of discretion a district court’s failure to order sua sponte a competency hearing. See United States v. Williams, 468 F.2d 819, 820 (5th Cir. 1972). 11 competence.” Tiller v. Esposito, 911 F.2d 575, 576 (11th Cir. 1990). We consider three factors in deciding whether the trial court violated the defendant’s due process rights by failing sua sponte to hold a competency hearing: (1) evidence of the defendant’s irrational behavior; (2) the defendant’s demeanor during the court proceedings; and (3) prior medical opinion regarding the defendant’s competence to stand trial. Id. Our analysis “focuses on what the trial court did in light of what it knew at the time of the trial or plea hearing.” Id. “Because legal competency is primarily a function of [a] defendant’s role in assisting counsel in conducting the defense, the defendant’s attorney is in the best position to determine whether the defendant’s competency is suspect.” Watts v. Singletary, 87 F.3d 1282, 1288 (11th Cir. 1996). Here, none of the factors suggests the district court sua sponte should have held a competency hearing before accepting Mateo’s guilty plea. There was no evidence of past irrational behavior by Mateo. Mateo’s demeanor during the proceedings was unexceptional. Mateo gave appropriate, polite answers to the district court’s questions and did not give the district court any reason to believe that at the time of the plea hearing Mateo was unable to assist his counsel or understand the charges against him. There was no medical opinion as to Mateo’s competency. 12 While the issue of Mateo’s mental disability was discussed at the plea colloquy, “the mere presence of mental illness or other mental disability at the time [the defendant] entered his plea does not necessarily mean that he was incompetent to plead . . . .” Bolius v. Wainwright, 597 F.2d 986, 990 (5th Cir. 1979). Although Mateo’s counsel indicated that a psychological workup was being done on Mateo, the remarks of both the district court and Mateo’s counsel make clear that all parties understood that this issue was to be a mitigating factor at sentencing, not an allegation of incompetency. All the information before the district court indicated that Mateo was able to participate meaningfully in the proceedings against him. Further, Mateo’s counsel expressly declined to raise the issue of competence at the plea hearing. Under these particular circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to hold a competency hearing sua sponte.4