Opinion ID: 4537252
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Challenge to Competency Finding

Text: Krueger contends that the district court erred by finding him incompetent to stand trial in 2017, which remains the cause of his ongoing sentence. To be competent, a defendant must have “sufficient ability to consult with his lawyers and a reasonable degree of rational and factual understanding of the proceedings against him.” United States v. Ford, 184 F.3d 566, 580 (6th Cir. 1999). Krueger argues that he has always met this test, as he was competent to stand trial in 2014, and that his 2016 filing with the court was an insufficient basis to raise competency concerns. The Government argues that Krueger’s challenge to the earlier incompetency finding is moot. After he was found competent, Krueger pled guilty to the indictment and his case was adjudicated to a final judgment, and undoing the earlier incompetency finding would have no bearing on his current set of grievances. See United States v. Sanchez-Gomez, 138 S. Ct. 1532, 1540-42 (2018). Krueger also asserts that his injuries are capable of repetition in the future, but we are unwilling to assume that Krueger will again engage in conduct that will place him at risk of being found incompetent to stand trial. Id. His claim is moot and the possibility that he might one day be found incompetent to stand trial in a different criminal case is insufficient to render his present challenge justiciable. Demis v. Sniezek, 558 F.3d 508, 512, 516 (6th Cir. 2009). -5- No. 18-4118, United States v. Krueger