Opinion ID: 526038
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the last-ditch motions

Text: 46 Rivera-Martinez has yet another string to his bow. After the district court refused to allow retraction of his guilty plea, 7 Rivera-Martinez filed a motion (Motion No. 1) requesting (a) psychiatric and psychological examinations, and (b) a competency hearing. The judge denied Motion No. 1, stating that there was ample evidence ... on the subject of competency, and no reasonable cause to believe that the defendant is suffering from mental disease or a defect rendering him incapable to understand the nature and consequences of these proceedings. On September 9, defendant moved for reconsideration (Motion No. 2) and simultaneously filed a further motion (Motion No. 3) informing the court that he had retained Dr. Carol Romey, a clinical psychologist. Motion No. 3 requested that Dr. Romey be provided with Rivera-Martinez's medical records and permitted to conduct an evaluative interview. 8 Motions No. 2 and 3 were summarily denied. 47
48 Our consideration of these orders begins with 18 U.S.C. Sec. 4241, 9 a statute designed to reflect the deeply-rooted idea that a person whose mental condition is such that he lacks the capacity to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him, to consult with counsel, and to assist in preparing his defense may not be subjected to a trial. Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 171, 95 S.Ct. 896, 903, 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975). The need for competency survives trial and extends through the sentencing phase of a criminal proceeding. See, e.g., Hall v. United States, 410 F.2d 653, 658 & n. 2 (4th Cir.) (incompetent defendant may not be effectively present at sentencing; passing sentence under such conditions might violate due process), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 970, 90 S.Ct. 455, 24 L.Ed.2d 436 (1969). As sentencing approaches and occurs, the defendant's best interest--and, indeed, the public interest--requires that he be capable of assisting his counsel and his cause. The Criminal Rules explicitly provide for a convicted defendant's continued participation in the adversary process, for example, through critical evaluation of the presentence investigation report, see Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(a)(1)(A), and allocution at time of sentencing, see Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(a)(1)(C). These activities are of considerable import. As Justice Frankfurter wrote anent allocution: The most persuasive counsel may not be able to speak for a defendant as the defendant might, with halting eloquence, speak for himself. Green v. United States, 365 U.S. 301, 304, 81 S.Ct. 653, 655, 5 L.Ed.2d 670 (1961) (plurality opinion). Surely, the sentencing process necessitates that the defendant possess both a present ability to consult with [a] lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding, and a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings. Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 402, 80 S.Ct. 788, 789, 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960) (per curiam) (defining competence to stand trial). 49 Notwithstanding the salience of this principle, a trial judge is not required to grant every motion questioning an accused's competency. The governing statute operates on two levels: 18 U.S.C. Sec. 4241(a) authorizes the court to hold evidentiary hearings in which competency may be fully explored, and section 4241(b) permits examinations to be undertaken. There is no automatic entitlement to a competency hearing at any stage; to invoke the anodyne of section 4241(a), a threshold showing must first be made. See, e.g., Wojtowicz, 550 F.2d at 790 (hearing necessary if defendant furnishes sufficiently detailed and controverted factual allegations which, if true, would indicate incompetency). Motions under section 4241(b) serve several purposes, one being to ascertain whether there is enough reason to warrant inquiry into the facts, that is, to justify holding an evidentiary hearing under section 4241(a). We believe that such exploratory motions should be allowed with some liberality. 50 When there has been no previous competency hearing, appellate courts should review denial of an examination request scrupulously in order to ensure that the defendant's rights are safeguarded. See United States v. Johns, 728 F.2d 953, 956 (7th Cir.1984) (when there has been no psychiatric examination or judicial determination, our review is comprehensive); see also United States v. Renfroe, 825 F.2d 763, 766 (3d Cir.1987) (similar). Where, as here, the defense has engaged a qualified expert and is willing and able to defray the expense, there will typically be little reason to deny an initial request for psychiatric evaluation, if timely. After all, the public has a vital stake in assuring the evenhanded availability of adequate procedural safeguards and thereby preventing incompetent persons from being held to the same standards as other criminal defendants. See generally United States v. Auen, 846 F.2d 872, 877 (2d Cir.1988). 51
52 Applying these principles, we think it rather clear that the court below erred in denying Motion No. 3. 10 In essence, that motion requested only that defendant, at his own expense, be allowed to have a qualified psychologist conduct a mental examination. Given the timing, honoring the motion would have worked little discernible prejudice to either court or prosecution. Sentencing took place on October 11, 1988. There is no indication that Dr. Romey could not have performed her examination and filed her report prior thereto. Conversely, the defendant's interest was great. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and fined $100,000. 53 Then, too, the request seems to have been not entirely a shot in the dark. Defendant alleged in Motion No. 1 that he was a long-time drug abuser; that he had been treated previously for mental illness; and that one of his former attorneys had stated under oath that the imbalance in [defendant's] personality affected his cooperation with counsel. Rivera-Martinez's medicinal regimen was at that point a matter of record. See supra Part III(B). Under the circumstances, there was no sound basis for preventing appellant from pursuing further inquiry on the subject of competency. 11 Motion No. 3 should have been granted. 54 To be sure, defendant cannot now revivify his plea-withdrawal motion. Rivera-Martinez previously raised the issue of competency to plead (vis-a-vis ingestion of prescription drugs), yet he made no request for either a competency determination or a mental examination while that motion was pending. Nor did he offer psychiatric testimony at the plea-withdrawal hearing, even though he bore the devoir of persuasion. Having opted to forgo such evidence as a basis for plea retraction, defendant is foreclosed from belatedly questioning competency at the time of the plea. See Ramos, 810 F.2d at 314 (eleventh-hour claim that depression affected voluntariness of defendant's plea was rejected without hearing when defendant's attorneys did not raise any concern as to his competence until the motion to withdraw was filed). 55 Be that as it may, remand can still serve a purpose. The final round of motions did not address Rivera-Martinez's competency at the time he pled; rather, as Motion No. 1 spelled out in some detail, defendant argued the existence of reasonable cause to believe that [he] ... may be presently incompetent to understand the proceedings (emphasis supplied). If defendant was incompetent at the time of sentencing, the proceedings should not have continued. See Wojtowicz, 550 F.2d at 790-91 (while defendant's allegations merited evidentiary hearing on competency at sentencing, he adduced no evidence warranting reopening issue of competency to plead). 56 We rule, therefore, that the district court erred in denying Motion No. 3. We consequently vacate defendant's sentence; remand so that Dr. Romey may conduct her evaluation; and direct the district court to convene a hearing if Dr. Romey's examination, together with the other facts of record, yields reasonable cause to question Rivera-Martinez's competency. The district court may proceed to resentence defendant only when and if the competency issue is resolved in the government's favor.