Opinion ID: 808733
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Motion for Competency Hearing

Text: In December 2010, before the district court ruled on the motion to withdraw his guilty plea, Fuenmayor-Arevalo filed a written motion for a court determination of his competency and again requested to withdraw his guilty plea. He claimed that he was legally incompetent because he was unable to assist properly in his defense. 6 Case: 11-13913 Date Filed: 09/18/2012 Page: 7 of 24 In support of his motion for a court declaration of incompetency, Fuenmayor-Arevalo submitted in camera copies of two psychological examination reports. The first report, which resulted from Dr. Leon’s evaluation in November 2010, concluded that Fuenmayor-Arevalo was mildly mentally retarded, had an IQ score of 52, and possibly suffered from dementia affecting his memory and problem-solving ability. Dr. Leon opined that Fuenmayor-Arevalo’s “limited intellectual ability and apparent neurocognitive impairment” prevented him from appreciating the government’s evidence against him and from “providing his attorney with any meaningful communications that would allow him to assist in his defense.” The second report, prepared by Dr. Hector Cases following a neurological examination in December 2010, stated that Fuenmayor-Arevalo possibly suffered from dementia, but that a brain MRI, brain PET scan, and bloodwork were necessary for a definitive diagnosis. However, Dr. Cases still opined that Fuenmayor-Arevalo was “not competent to understand the nature and potential consequences of the proceedings against him.” The government responded that Fuenmayor-Arevalo’s guilty plea should be enforced because the psychological evaluation was inconsistent with his conduct throughout the proceedings, including his demonstrated ability to logically and 7 Case: 11-13913 Date Filed: 09/18/2012 Page: 8 of 24 reasonably explain the facts of the case. After discussing the issue with the parties at a December 7, 2010 hearing, the magistrate judge determined that Fuenmayor-Arevalo was entitled to an evidentiary hearing and placed him under custodial observation at a federal detention center for 30 days. E. Motions for Diagnostic Tests and Dr. Luis’s Examination In January 2011, Fuenmayor-Arevalo filed a motion requesting no more than $6,000 for the three tests—a brain MRI, a brain PET scan, and various bloodwork—recommended by Dr. Cases to diagnose dementia. Fuenmayor-Arevalo argued that these tests would provide conclusive evidence of brain damage or incapacity and were necessary for an adequate defense. On February 10, 2011, the magistrate judge denied without prejudice the motion for the diagnostic tests. Fuenmayor-Arevalo did not object or otherwise challenge the denial of his motion for diagnostic tests. On February 11, 2011, the magistrate judge issued an order committing Fuenmayor-Arevalo to the custody of the Attorney General for 30 days for a competency evaluation under 18 U.S.C. § 4241. During Fuenmayor-Arevalo’s 30 days at the federal detention center, Dr. Jorge Luis, a forensic psychologist, evaluated Fuenmayor-Arevalo and found him competent. In April 2011, Dr. Luis 8 Case: 11-13913 Date Filed: 09/18/2012 Page: 9 of 24 also sent a written report to the court and to Fuenmayor-Arevalo.1 After receiving Dr. Luis’s report, Fuenmayor-Arevalo renewed his motion requesting the diagnostic tests suggested by Dr. Cases. On May 11, 2011, the magistrate judge denied the renewed motion because the diagnostic tests were not necessary to determine whether Fuenmayor-Arevalo was competent when he pled guilty. Fuenmayor-Arevalo did not object or otherwise challenge the magistrate judge’s May 11, 2011 order denying this renewed motion for diagnostic tests. F. Evidentiary Hearing and Competency Findings On June 23, 2011, the magistrate judge conducted an evidentiary hearing regarding Fuenmayor-Arevalo’s competency and the validity of his earlier guilty plea. At the start of the hearing, Fuenmayor-Arevalo orally renewed his motion for the diagnostic tests a second time, and the magistrate judge again denied that motion. Dr. Leon, a neuropsychologist, testified that she examined Fuenmayor-Arevalo in November 2010 and June 2011 to assess his competency. Dr. Leon believed that Fuenmayor-Arevalo had been mildly to moderately mentally retarded since childhood. Dr. Leon assessed Fuenmayor-Arevalo’s 1 Although the district court and the parties apparently received Dr. Luis’s report, the report was not docketed in the district court and is not in the record on appeal. Nevertheless, Dr. Luis testified about his findings at the competency hearing discussed later. 9 Case: 11-13913 Date Filed: 09/18/2012 Page: 10 of 24 verbal ability IQ score as 52. He showed signs of possible dementia and generally displayed the reasoning ability of a six-year-old child. He also appeared “to possibly be susceptible to suggestion,” and he would, in an attempt to be agreeable, respond affirmatively to basic questions such as, “Is your day going well?” Accordingly, Dr. Leon would question Fuenmayor-Arevalo’s assent to any proposition unless he articulated it in his own words. Dr. Leon also reported that, in one assessment, Fuenmayor-Arevalo was presented with brief legal scenarios and his verbal responses were compared to those of confirmed incompetent test-takers. Dr. Leon opined that Fuenmayor-Arevalo’s low-percentile score showed that he could not adequately understand, reason, or appreciate the scenarios. Similarly, with respect to the current proceedings, Dr. Leon opined that Fuenmayor-Arevalo was unable to articulate the charges against him, whether now or at the time of his plea, and was only partially responsive to Dr. Leon’s questions. Regarding Fuenmayor-Arevalo’s ability to discuss the proceedings with counsel, Dr. Leon opined that Fuenmayor-Arevalo “would have some ability to discuss whatever he did capture in terms of attention and retention” but that he could not “engage in a meaningful discussion because of his significantly impaired verbal expression abilities.” 10 Case: 11-13913 Date Filed: 09/18/2012 Page: 11 of 24 During cross-examination, Dr. Leon testified that she had spent approximately three and one half hours interviewing and assessing Fuenmayor-Arevalo, which she believed was more than enough time to make a valid assessment. In diagnosing Fuenmayor-Arevalo as mentally retarded, Dr. Leon relied on his marginal lifestyle, low achievement, apparent inability to learn, and his presentation. Pat Doherty, the defense attorney for one of Fuenmayor-Arevalo’s codefendants, testified that he met with Fuenmayor-Arevalo and found him to be incapable of coherently explaining his role in the charged offense or identifying the basic function of the judge or the prosecutor. On cross-examination, Doherty acknowledged that Fuenmayor-Arevalo told him that there was cocaine on the boat and that Fuenmayor-Arevalo knew it was cocaine. Dr. Luis, the forensic psychologist from the federal detention center in Miami, testified that he had evaluated Fuenmayor-Arevalo during the 30-day, court-ordered competency evaluation. During that time, the prison staff reported that Fuenmayor-Arevalo had no problem functioning or maintaining his cell. Dr. Luis also administered a competency assessment designed to gauge legal knowledge and ability. During this competency assessment, Fuenmayor-Arevalo (1) correctly identified the charges against him and the basic roles of the judge, 11 Case: 11-13913 Date Filed: 09/18/2012 Page: 12 of 24 prosecutor, and defense attorney, (2) admitted that he was guilty of transporting 70 kilograms of cocaine, and (3) stated that he faced a potential sentence of nine or ten years. Additionally, Fuenmayor-Arevalo was able to provide information regarding his personal history and background. Dr. Luis found no evidence that Fuenmayor-Arevalo “is impaired by any mental disease or defect that would impair his ability to understand the legal proceedings.” Dr. Luis also found no evidence of any mental disease or defect that would have impaired his ability to consult with his attorney at the time he entered his plea. Additionally, Dr. Luis noted that Fuenmayor-Arevalo exhibited adaptive functioning in a structured setting because he was able to maintain his room and care for himself while he was at the detention center and he was “able to inform medical services [at the detention center] that he had been diagnosed with hypertension and cholesterol, essentially high cholesterol while he was at the [county] jail.” During cross-examination, Dr. Luis opined that Fuenmayor-Arevalo’s full scale IQ fell in the “very poor” range at 66. However, Dr. Luis testified that Fuenmayor-Arevalo apparently functioned well within his own cultural environment, as evidenced by his stable family status and long-term occupation. Although Fuenmayor-Arevalo performed poorly on some aspects of the 12 Case: 11-13913 Date Filed: 09/18/2012 Page: 13 of 24 competency assessment, Dr. Luis noted that Fuenmayor-Arevalo’s total lack of education made it more difficult to administer the tests and interpret the results. Further, although Fuenmayor-Arevalo suffered from memory deficits in specific areas, Dr. Luis testified that these problems were not significant enough to suggest dementia. G. Magistrate Judge’s Report on Motions In a June 27, 2011 report, the magistrate judge recommended that the district court find Fuenmayor-Arevalo competent now and at the time of his plea. The magistrate judge expressly credited Dr. Luis’s testimony, which was based on Fuenmayor-Arevalo’s rational responses to questions and his 30-day conduct at the prison, over Dr. Leon’s testimony based on her limited, post-plea evaluation of Fuenmayor-Arevalo. The magistrate judge recommended that the district court deny Fuenmayor-Arevalo’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which was entered knowingly, voluntarily, and with close assistance of counsel. On July 26, 2011, Fuenmayor-Arevalo objected to the magistrate judge’s report, re-arguing both his earlier motion to withdraw his guilty plea and the weight of the evidence regarding his competency. Specifically, Fuenmayor-Arevalo argued that his plea was not knowing and voluntary because he lacked the ability to understand his rights and available defenses and was 13 Case: 11-13913 Date Filed: 09/18/2012 Page: 14 of 24 susceptible to suggestion. Additionally, he argued that the magistrate judge erred in denying his three motions requesting funds for further diagnostic tests. After considering the record, the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s report, found that Fuenmayor-Arevalo was competent at the time he entered his guilty plea, and denied his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. H. PSI and Sentencing In the presentence investigation report (“PSI”), Fuenmayor-Arevalo was held responsible for the 70 kilograms of cocaine found on the boat. He was assigned a total offense level of 31 and a criminal history category of I.2 These factors established an advisory guidelines range of 108 to 135 months, subject to a 120-month statutory mandatory minimum sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A),3 which narrowed the advisory guidelines range to 120 to 135 months’ imprisonment. See U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(c) (providing that the bottom of the 2 The PSI assigned a base offense level of 36 under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c) because FuenmayorArevalo was responsible for 70 kilograms of cocaine. The PSI applied (1) a two-level reduction under § 3E1.1(a) for acceptance of responsibility; (2) a one-level reduction under § 3E1.1(b) for timely pleading guilty and assisting authorities with the prosecution of his offense; and (3) a twolevel reduction under § 2D1.1(b)(16) because Fuenmayor-Arevalo met the criteria for safety-valve relief under § 5C1.2(a). Thus, his total offense level was 31. (Although the parties contested the applicability of the statutory safety-valve provision, neither party objected to the PSI’s application of the two-level reduction under the guidelines safety-valve provision. Because neither party objected to any of the guidelines calculations in the PSI or on appeal, we do not address them). 3 Under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A), a defendant convicted of a drug offense involving five kilograms or more of cocaine is subject to mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years (or 120 months) and a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. 14 Case: 11-13913 Date Filed: 09/18/2012 Page: 15 of 24 guidelines range cannot be less than any statutorily required minimum sentence). In a PSI addendum, Fuenmayor-Arevalo objected to the PSI’s failure to recommend relief from the mandatory minimum sentence pursuant to the safety-valve provision of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). Fuenmayor-Arevalo also filed a separate motion requesting the application of the safety-valve provision. However, Fuenmayor-Arevalo did not object to either the factual allegations or guidelines calculations in the PSI. At sentencing, the district court adopted the factual allegations and guidelines calculations set forth in the PSI. The parties then argued their positions regarding the applicability of the statutory safety-valve provision in § 3553(f). The district court explained that, if the safety-valve applied, the court would likely sentence Fuenmayor-Arevalo to no more than 60 months, probably 36 to 48 months. Nevertheless, although noting that the issue was close, the district court concluded that Fuenmayor-Arevalo did not qualify for safety-valve relief. Accordingly, the district court calculated a total offense level of 31, a criminal history category of I, and an advisory guidelines range of 120 to 135 months’ imprisonment. The district court imposed the statutory mandatory minimum sentence of 120 months.