Opinion ID: 4245908
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Speedy-Trial Rights

Text: Pina argues that the delay in his trial caused by the second mental-health evaluation—the 115-day period between October 6, 2014, and January 29, 2015—violated his rights under the Speedy Trial Act and the Sixth Amendment. Appellant Br. at 8. Pina moved to dismiss the case against him on these grounds, R. 53 (Mot. to Dismiss at 3) (Page ID #284), but the district court denied his motion, R. 58 (Or. Denying Mot. to Dismiss at 1) (Page ID #325). We review a district court’s denial of a defendant’s motion to dismiss under the Speedy Trial Act or the Sixth Amendment using the same standard of review: questions of law are reviewed de novo, and questions of fact are reviewed for clear error. United States v. Sobh, 571 F.3d 600, 602 (6th Cir. 2009); United States v. Gardner, 488 F.3d 700, 719 (6th Cir. 2007).
“The Speedy Trial Act of 1974 (Speedy Trial Act or Act), 18 U.S.C. § 3161 et seq., requires that a criminal defendant’s trial commence within 70 days after he is charged or makes an initial appearance, whichever is later, see § 3161(c)(1), and entitles him to dismissal of the 8 No. 16-4006 United States v. Demian Pina charges if that deadline is not met, § 3162(a)(2).” Bloate v. United States, 559 U.S. 196, 198–99 (2010). For a violation of the Speedy Trial Act, the indictment may be dismissed with or without prejudice. United States v. Sutton, 862 F.3d 547, 554 (6th Cir. 2017) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3162). “The Act, however, excludes from the 70–day period delays due to certain enumerated events.” Bloate, 559 U.S. at 199 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)). “[O]nce a defendant makes a prima facie showing that more than 70 days have passed, the government bears the burden of proving sufficient excludable time by a preponderance of the evidence.” Sobh, 571 F.3d at 602. Here, 482 days passed from Pina’s initial appearance on February 26, 2014, to the beginning of his trial on June 22, 2015. R. 132 (Initial Appearance) (Page ID #1408–23); R. 126 (Trial Tr. Day 1) (Page ID #598–799). Thus, Pina has made a prima facie showing that more than seventy days passed. Pina concedes, however, that his claim hinges entirely on whether the 115-day delay caused by the second mental-health evaluation is excluded from the Act’s computation of time. Appellant Br. at 12–13. In other words, Pina concedes that the government can show that there is sufficient excludable time such that the Speedy Trial Act was not violated if this 115-day delay is excludable. “[D]elay resulting from any proceeding, including any examinations, to determine the mental competency or physical capacity of the defendant” is excluded from the computation of time under the Speedy Trial Act. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(A). Pina makes a two-step argument for why this provision does not fatally preclude his claim. We must accept both steps in order for Pina to prevail. First, he argues that the district court abused its discretion when it ordered 9 No. 16-4006 United States v. Demian Pina the second mental-health evaluation. Appellant Br. at 12–21. Second, Pina argues that we should import the reasonable-cause standard in 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a), which governs when the district court should order a competency hearing, into 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(A) so that if the district court did not have reasonable cause to order a hearing, then any delay caused by a mental-health evaluation conducted in order to facilitate this hearing should not be excludable from the time computation of the Speedy Trial Act.2 Appellant Br. at 21–25. “This Court reviews the determination of whether there is reasonable cause to question a defendant’s competence and to grant a competency hearing under an abuse of discretion standard.” United States v. Ross, 703 F.3d 856, 867 (6th Cir. 2012). Upon a motion by the defendant or the government for a competency hearing: [t]he court shall grant the motion, or shall order such a hearing on its own motion, 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). Prior to this hearing, “the court may order that a psychiatric or psychological examination of the defendant be conducted, and that a psychiatric or psychological report be filed with the court, pursuant to the provisions of section 4247 (b) and (c).” 18 U.S.C. § 4241(b). “A psychiatric or psychological examination ordered pursuant to this chapter shall be conducted by a licensed or certified psychiatrist or psychologist, or, if the court finds it appropriate, by more than one such examiner.” 18 U.S.C. § 4247(b) (emphasis added). 2 See note 3 infra. 10 No. 16-4006 United States v. Demian Pina Pina does not contest the district court’s initial decision to order a competency hearing and the first mental-health evaluation to facilitate a determination of his competency at that hearing. Rather, Pina argues that the district court abused its discretion by ordering a second mental-health evaluation prior to the conclusion of his competency hearing because it “arbitrarily disregarded the first competency evaluation.”3 Appellant Br. at 17. The district court has the authority to order a second mental-health evaluation “if the court finds it appropriate.” 18 U.S.C. § 4247(b). During the first evaluation, conducted by De Marchis, Pina was uncooperative. He stated that he did not understand the charges against him. Furthermore, of the two psychological tests that De Marchis conducted, one produced invalid results. Thus, despite De Marchis’s opinion that Pina was competent, the issues that arose during the evaluation made it appropriate for the district court to order a second mental-health evaluation before it concluded its competency hearing. See United States v. Martinez-Haro, 645 F.3d 1228, 1233 (10th Cir. 2011) (holding that it was not an abuse of discretion for a district court to order a second mental-health evaluation when the first evaluation was hampered by a language barrier and there was no evidence that the government was “shopping” for an evaluator who would opine that the defendant was competent); cf. Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 181 3 Pina elides the difference between a mental-health evaluation and a competency hearing in his argument. In this case, the district court did not make a determination as to Pina’s competency to stand trial until after the court had the results of both evaluations. R. 124 (Competency Hr’g Pt. 2 at 3) (Page ID #561); R. 42 (Or. re Pina’s Competency at 10) (Page ID #125). This makes Pina’s argument that there must be evidence of a change in Pina’s competency between the first and second evaluation inapposite because the district court had not yet determined Pina’s competency when the second evaluation was ordered. Appellant Br. at 17–21. 11 No. 16-4006 United States v. Demian Pina (1975) (recognizing that competency may change during trial). The district court acted to protect Pina’s interests; it did not abuse its discretion in doing so. Because Pina cannot prevail on the first part of his two-step argument, we need not address the second part: that we should import 18 U.S.C. §§ 4241(a) and 4247(b) into 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(A). Consequently, we reject Pina’s argument that his rights under the Speedy Trial Act were violated because the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the second mental-health evaluation, and therefore the 115-day delay resulting from this second evaluation is excludable from the Speedy Trial Act’s time computation.
Pina also argues that his speedy-trial rights under the Sixth Amendment were violated. Appellant Br. at 9. The Sixth Amendment guarantees that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial . . . .” U.S. CONST. amend. VI. “The purpose of the speedy-trial guarantee is to protect the accused against oppressive pre-trial incarceration, the anxiety and concern due to unresolved criminal charges, and the risk that evidence will be lost or memories diminished.” Brown v. Romanowski, 845 F.3d 703, 712 (6th Cir. 2017). “The remedy for a Sixth Amendment speedy-trial violation is dismissal with prejudice.” Sutton, 862 F.3d at 554. The Supreme Court has articulated a four-factor test for evaluating a defendant’s Sixth Amendment speedy-trial claim: “(1) length of delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) the defendant’s assertion of his right; and (4) prejudice to the defendant.” United States v. Brown, 12 No. 16-4006 United States v. Demian Pina 498 F.3d 523, 530 (6th Cir. 2007) (citing Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530–33 (1972)). “None of the factors is ‘a necessary or a sufficient condition to the finding of a deprivation of the right of speedy trial,’ but the factors are related and ‘must be considered with such other circumstances as may be relevant’ in ‘a difficult and sensitive balancing process.’” United States v. Young, 657 F.3d 408, 414 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting Barker, 407 U.S. at 533). “The first Barker factor—the length of delay—serves as a threshold or ‘triggering mechanism’ for a speedy-trial analysis.” Id. (quoting Barker, 407 U.S. at 530). “That is, if there is no delay that is presumptively prejudicial, there is no necessity for inquiry into the other factors.” Gardner, 488 F.3d at 719. A delay is “presumptively prejudicial” if it “approaches one year.” Id. Unlike the Speedy Trial Act, the Sixth Amendment time calculation begins “when the defendant is arrested or indicted, whichever is earlier.” Romanowski, 845 F.3d at 712–13. Pina was indicted on February 25, 2014. R. 5 (Indictment at 1) (Page ID #10). His trial began on June 22, 2015. R. 126 (Trial Tr. Day 1 at 2) (Page ID #599). Thus, Pina suffered a delay of 483 days, which is “presumptively prejudicial.” In assessing the second Barker factor, “the court considers who is most at fault” for the delay: “the government or the defendant.” Romanowski, 845 F.3d at 714. “Governmental delays motivated by bad faith, harassment, or attempts to seek a tactical advantage weigh heavily against the government, while neutral reasons such as negligence are weighted less heavily, and valid reasons for a delay weigh in favor of the government.” United States v. Ferreira, 665 F.3d 701, 705–06 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 455 F.3d 602, 607 (6th Cir. 13 No. 16-4006 United States v. Demian Pina 2006)). Pina contests only the 115-day delay caused by the second mental-health evaluation, Appellant Br. at 10, presumably because the remainder of the delay is mostly attributable to pretrial motions Pina made or continuances that he requested. Young, 657 F.3d at 415 (“When a party makes motions, it cannot use the delay caused by those motions as a basis for a speedy-trial claim.”); see, e.g., R. 29 (Or. re First Def. Mot. to Continue) (Page ID #87); R. 32 (Second Def. Mot. to Continue) (Page ID #90–92). But the reason behind this delay weighs in favor of the government. The government had a valid reason to ensure that the defendant was competent to stand trial. Drope, 420 U.S. at 172 (“[T]he failure to observe procedures adequate to protect a defendant’s right not to be tried or convicted while incompetent to stand trial deprives him of his due process right to a fair trial.”); cf. United States v. Murphy, 241 F.3d 447, 454 (6th Cir. 2001) (holding, in the context of a Speedy Trial Act claim, that “a defendant may not complain of delays occasioned by the trial court’s attempt to protect his interests”). The government does not contest that the third Baker—whether the defendant asserted his speedy-trial right—weighs in favor of Pina. Appellee Br. at 25–26. Pina moved the district court to dismiss the case against him for violations of his Sixth Amendment speedy-trial right. R. 53 (Mot. to Dismiss at 3) (Page ID #284). The final Barker factor “requires a defendant to show that substantial prejudice has resulted from the delay.” Ferreira, 665 F.3d at 706 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). “The prejudice prong exists to protect three interests: ‘(i) to prevent oppressive pretrial incarceration; (ii) to minimize anxiety and concern of the accused; and (iii) to limit the 14 No. 16-4006 United States v. Demian Pina possibility that the defense will be impaired.’” Young, 657 F.3d at 418 (quoting Barker, 407 U.S. at 532). The last interest is the most important. Id. Pina argues that the extension of his pretrial incarceration due to the second mental-health evaluation fostered his distrust in the government, causing him to reject the multiple plea offers the government made.4 Appellant Br. at 11. Any post-trial regret Pina has at turning down all three plea offers extended by the government, however, is not prejudice attributable to the delay. Pina’s distrust of the government existed prior to his second mental-health evaluation. And Pina rejected the first, and most favorable, plea offer in June 2014, before the district court had even ordered the first mental-health evaluation. R. 125 (Best Case/Worst Case Hr’g Tr. at 17) (Page ID #594). After considering the Barker factors, we hold that the government did not violate Pina’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. Although the delay between Pina’s indictment and trial was nearly sixteen months, much of this delay is attributable to Pina’s pretrial motions and motions for continuances. Furthermore, the portion of the delay for which the government is to blame weighs in favor of the government because it was seeking to protect Pina’s constitutional rights. Finally, Pina cannot articulate any prejudice arising from this delay. 4 Pina argues in passing that the length of delay is presumptively prejudicial. Appellant Br. at 11. We have previously held, however, that a two-year delay is not so extraordinarily long as to entitle a defendant to relief in the absence of proof of actual prejudice. United States v. Jackson, 473 F.3d 660, 668 (6th Cir. 2007). Thus a delay of less than two years, as occurred here, cannot be used to satisfy presumptively this fourth factor. 15 No. 16-4006 United States v. Demian Pina