Opinion ID: 1133754
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Pardo's Competence to Stand Trial

Text: Pardo asserts that the trial court erred in denying an evidentiary hearing on his claims that he was incompetent to stand trial, that the expert witnesses who found him competent conducted inadequate mental health evaluations, and that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to request a competency hearing or investigate the cause of Pardo's alleged insanity and incompetence. We agree with the trial court that Pardo's claims that he was incompetent to stand trial and that he received inadequate expert evaluations are procedurally barred. Pardo's assertion that he was tried while incompetent in violation of due process of law is merely a variant of his failed argument on direct appeal that the trial court should have ordered a competency hearing sua sponte. See generally Medina v. State, 573 So.2d 293, 295 (Fla.1990) ([I]t is inappropriate to use a different argument to relitigate the same issue.). In rejecting this claim on direct appeal, we stated: The court-appointed experts examined Pardo, found him to have been sane, and also determined that he was competent to stand trial. Thus, not only was there no reason for the court to have ordered a competency hearing, but also there was no prejudice to Pardo, as the hearing would not have benefited him. Pardo, 563 So.2d at 79. Further, Pardo's assertion that the psychological evaluations we relied upon for this conclusion were performed incompetently could have been raised on direct appeal. See Rodriguez v. State, 919 So.2d 1252, 1267 (Fla.2005); Marshall v. State, 854 So.2d 1235, 1248 (Fla.2003). We reject Pardo's attempt to avoid the procedural bar by relying on the diagnosis of a thyroid and hormonal disorder that was made after he was sentenced but allegedly rendered him incompetent to stand trial. Like the performance of counsel, the competence of an expert's assistance should be evaluated from the perspective of the circumstances in which it was conducted, free of the distorting effects of hindsight. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). From this perspective, the evaluations of Pardo were not so deficient that he was denied his due process right to competent expert assistance under Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985). Pardo's assertion that he was incompetent to stand trial is also the basis for two claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, both of which were summarily denied. First, Pardo asserts that counsel should have requested a competency hearing. In summarily rejecting this claim, the trial court again relied on this Court's determination on direct appeal that the trial court had no reason to hold a competency hearing and that the hearing, if held, would not have benefited Pardo. The record conclusively demonstrates that Pardo is not entitled to relief on this claim. As noted above, two forensic psychiatrists and two clinical psychologists concluded that Pardo was competent to stand trial. They explained their conclusions in terms consistent with the standards for competency set out in Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 402, 80 S.Ct. 788, 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960), and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.211(a)(2): sufficient present ability to consult with counsel plus a rational and factual understanding of the pending proceedings. In the direct appeal, this Court recognized that in light of the experts' conclusions that Pardo was competent, there was no reason for the trial court to order a competency hearing. Pardo, 563 So.2d at 79. For the same reason, trial counsel acted well within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance in declining to request that the trial court make a competency determination. On this issue, this case is similar to Mason v. State, 489 So.2d 734 (Fla.1986). There, this Court remanded for an evidentiary hearing on whether evidence of the defendant's mental history discovered after trial would have changed the experts' conclusion that he was competent. However, we rejected Mason's related claim that counsel was ineffective in failing to request a competency hearing. We ruled that counsel had no duty to request a competency hearing after receiving reports from three psychiatrists finding the defendant competent. Id. at 735-36. Here, as in Mason, at the time of trial counsel lacked any evidence indicating the need for such a procedure. Id. at 736. The unanimous opinions of the mental health experts in this case left counsel no basis on which to seek a competency determination. Accordingly, we find neither deficient performance nor prejudice in counsel's decision not to seek a hearing on Pardo's competency. We thus affirm the trial court's denial of relief on this claim. Pardo further claims that counsel was ineffective in failing to alert the mental health experts to symptoms such as weight gain and hair loss that might have led them to diagnose Pardo's thyroid and hormonal disorder. In denying this claim, the trial court stated that [i]f a medical doctor did not diagnose a physical disorder, it cannot be reasonably said that counsel was ineffective in failing to further investigate the cause of Defendant's insanity. As the United States Supreme Court cautioned in Strickland, [a] fair assessment of attorney performance requires that every effort be made to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight, to reconstruct the circumstances of counsel's challenged conduct, and to evaluate the conduct from counsel's perspective at the time. 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052. From counsel's perspective at the time he was preparing to defend Pardo, and without the distorting effects of hindsight, an investigation into any physical cause of Pardo's possible incompetence would not have been warranted. The tests for both insanity and incompetence focus on a defendant's thought processes and mental function rather than on physical conditions that might affect a defendant's mental function. Patton v. State, 878 So.2d 368, 375 (Fla.2004) (stating test for insanity in Florida); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.211(a) (stating test for competency to stand trial). Rule 3.211(b), which concerns recommended treatments of incompetent defendants, in subdivision (1) requires experts to report on the mental illness or mental retardation causing the incompetence but not on physical illness. Thus, counsel, like the four mental health experts who evaluated Pardo, appropriately focused not on symptoms indicating a physical illness but on Pardo's mental functioninghis comprehension and ability to reason. We distinguish Peede v. State, 748 So.2d 253 (Fla.1999), which involved a similar claim. In Peede, this Court reversed the summary denial of a postconviction motion asserting that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to assist a court-appointed psychiatrist and provide the psychiatrist important background information. Id. at 258-59. Peede alleged that the court-appointed expert was not provided hospital or medical records that were available and did not interview anyone familiar with the defendant's personal history. Id. at 258. The necessity for an evidentiary hearing rested largely on Peede's assertion that his serious and preexisting mental illness demonstrated by these records went undiscovered and could have affected the competency evaluation conducted by the court-appointed mental health expert. Id. at 259. In contrast, Pardo has not pointed to any existing medical records which, if shown to the mental health experts, would have changed their conclusions that Pardo was competent to stand trial. Instead, Pardo's claim rests on observations of physical symptoms which, as the trial court pointed out, did not indicate to a medical doctor a physical disorder bearing on Pardo's competency or sanity. Thus, Pardo's counsel did not render constitutionally deficient performance in failing to alert the experts to a condition for which physical symptoms first appeared while Pardo was detained pending trial, and that was not diagnosed until after Pardo was convicted and sentenced. We affirm the summary denial of relief on this claim.