Opinion ID: 795132
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ineffective Assistance in Failing to Contest Hoffman's Competency

Text: 46 Hoffman claims that his attorneys were ineffective because they did not contest his competency to stand trial. We conclude that Hoffman was not prejudiced by his attorneys' failure to move for a competency hearing, and thus decline to consider whether trial counsel's conduct fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under the first prong of Strickland. 47 A person is competent to stand trial if he understands the proceedings and is able to assist counsel in his defense. See Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 402, 80 S.Ct. 788, 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960). Competency requires the mental acuity to see, hear and digest the evidence, and the ability to communicate with counsel in helping to prepare an effective defense. Odle v. Woodford, 238 F.3d 1084, 1089 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Dusky, 362 U.S. at 402, 80 S.Ct. 788). 48 Our above finding, that counsel had reason to doubt Hoffman's mental capacity, does not inexorably lead to the conclusion that Hoffman was incompetent to stand trial. The standard for competency to stand trial is lower than the standard for capacity to commit a crime. United States v. Flynt, 756 F.2d 1352, 1365 n. 11 (9th Cir.1985). Those with mental disorders frequently know the difference between right and wrong and are competent to stand trial, even if they are regarded as less culpable because of their mental capacity. Atkins, 536 U.S. at 318, 122 S.Ct. 2242. As such, we have held that those with mental deficiencies are not necessarily incompetent to stand trial. See Boyde v. Brown, 404 F.3d 1159, 1166-67 (9th Cir.2005). In this case, we find that there is no reasonable probability that the court would have found Hoffman incompetent to stand trial. 49 Wellman admitted that he had concerns about [Hoffman's] ability to follow, to take in info[rmation] and respond to it. Wellman noted Hoffman's passive nature, that he would often nod along even when things were going over his head. Counsel also noticed that Hoffman had difficulty orally expressing himself and presented an odd theory of why he slit Denise Williams's throat. At the same time, both trial counsel testified that Hoffman had some ability to describe what happened to Williams and to discuss his role and the role of others in her murder. As Wellman put it, Hoffman understood the facts of the case against him, even if he did not always understand the law. Based on that description of Hoffman's capabilities, it is unlikely that counsel could have convinced the court that Hoffman was incompetent to stand trial. 50 In addition, observations of Hoffman by those around him at the time of his trial also suggest that Hoffman would not have been found incompetent to stand trial. For example, Dr. Sanford, the expert who interviewed Hoffman in 1989 prior to sentencing, testified that he did not note any frank indications of incompetence. Indeed, Hoffman himself testified, at his post-conviction hearing in December 1989, that to the best of his knowledge he had followed what was going on during trial and that he understood his attorneys' strategy. Given counsels' assessment of Hoffman's ability, Dr. Sanford's evaluation of Hoffman near the time of trial, and Hoffman's own evaluation of his competency during the trial, we do not believe that Hoffman would have been declared incompetent, had his attorneys moved for a competency hearing. 51 The record indicates that Hoffman had difficulty understanding the aider and abettor theory of liability. But competency to stand trial requires an understanding of the factual basis of the proceedings, and does not require mastery of technical legal knowledge. See Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 402, 113 S.Ct. 2680, 125 L.Ed.2d 321 (1993); see also Allard v. Helgemoe, 572 F.2d 1, 4 (1st Cir.1978) (concluding that a defendant's inability to understand the intent element of a crime did not render him incompetent). Hoffman's difficulty in accepting the culpability of indirect participants to a crime would not have made him incompetent to stand trial. 52 In short, we conclude that Hoffman has not proved an ineffective assistance claim based on his counsels' failure to challenge his competency because there is not a reasonable probability that Hoffman would have been found incompetent. Because Hoffman was not prejudiced by his counsels' conduct, we affirm the district court's finding that Hoffman was not denied the effective assistance of counsel when his attorneys failed to move for a competency hearing. 53