Opinion ID: 78507
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether Pardo Was Tried While Incompetent

Text: Pardo argues that he was tried while incompetent because he was physically ill with a thyroid and hormonal disorder which caused a severe mood disorders and clinical depression. He contends that, as a result of the doctors' failure to conduct physical examinations or to otherwise follow up on the physical symptoms that they observed, he was tried while suffering from significant medical problems. He maintains that it is not procedurally barred because it is based on facts developed outside of the record on direct appeal. In his report to the trial judge, Dr. Jacobson noted that Pardo had complained about losing hair from his mustache, an eyebrow and on his arms and legs. He stated that such a loss might be attributed to stress. During the trial, he explained that, although his initial impression of Pardo's physical appearance was that he was clean, neat, and tidy, he later noticed that Pardo had some hair loss in one of his eyebrows. R1-10, Exh. App. L, Vol. 12 at 3680. Pardo explained to Jacobson that he was also having some hair loss problems on his arms and other areas. Dr. Marquit reported that Pardo complained of hair loss but opined that it could be due to trichotillomania, a condition in which the victim pulls his hair out. Pardo denied doing this, but Marquit had observed him fingering his hair at least once. In his post-conviction petition, Pardo requested an evidentiary hearing on the issue of his competency at trial, but the issue was found to be procedurally barred by both the trial court and by the Florida Supreme Court. The Florida Supreme Court noted that the issue was merely a variant of his failed argument on direct appeal that the trial court should have ordered a competency hearing sua sponte and could have been raised on direct appeal. Pardo III, 941 So. 2d at 1062-63. The Florida Supreme Court also rejected Pardo's attempt to avoid the procedural bar by relying on the diagnosis of a thyroid and hormonal disorder that was made after he was sentenced but allegedly rendered him incompetent to stand trial because, based on a review from the perspective of the circumstances in which the experts' evaluations of Pardo were conducted, their evaluations were not so deficient as to deny Pardo due process. Id. at 1063. The Florida Supreme Court explained that the evaluating experts appropriately focused on Pardo's comprehension and ability to reason in making their competence determination and not on his physical symptoms or illness. Id. at 1064. The district court denied the claim noting that it could have been raised on direct appeal, and that Pardo failed to show prejudice because he had not produced any medical records that would have changed the experts' conclusions that he was mentally competent to stand trial. It concluded that the Florida Supreme Court's conclusion did not unreasonably apply clearly established Supreme Court precedent. Although the district court correctly found that this claim was procedurally defaulted, the claim also fails substantively. In evaluating such a claim, we concern ourselves with the facts that could have indicated to the trial court that the mental health professionals who evaluated Pardo provided incompetent assistance and should have ordered a physical examination. [3] See Clisby v. Jones, 960 F.2d 925, 930 (11th Cir. 1992) (en banc). Besides the professionals' comments about Pardo's hair loss, which at least one attributed to stress, there was no evidence submitted to the trial judge of any physical ailments suffered by Pardo which would have effected his competence. To be competent to stand trial, a defendant must have sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and that ability must be of record. Dusky, 362 U.S. at 402, 80 S. Ct. at 788. The state court's factual conclusions regarding a defendant's competence to stand trial are entitled to a presumption of correctness, and can be overcome only with clear and convincing evidence of incompetence. Demosthenes v. Baal, 495 U.S. 731, 735, 110 S. Ct. 2223, 2225 (1990) (per curiam); Sanchez-Velasco v. Secretary, 287 F.3d 1015, 1030 (11th Cir. 2002). On a post-conviction incompetency claim, the standard of proof is high: the petitioner must present a preponderance of clear and convincing evidence of positive[], unequivocal[], and clear[] facts creating a real, substantial and legitimate doubt as his competence. Medina v. Singletary, 59 F.3d 1095, 1106 (11th Cir. 1995). Evidence of incompetence must indicate a present inability to assist counsel or understand the charges. Id. at 1107. Absent evidence of such an inability, evidence of low intelligence, mental deficiency, bizarre, volatile, or irrational behavior, or the use of anti-psychotic drugs is not sufficient to show incompetence to stand trial. Id. The Florida Supreme Court correctly identified and applied Supreme Court precedent. Pardo did not come forth with the new evidence of his alleged incompetence due to his thyroid condition until 2001, and even then it was merely an assessment that he suffered from an altered mental status secondary to a general medical condition of thyroid impairment at the time of his trial which rendered him incompetent. R1-10, Exh. App. N Vol. 25 at 102. As the Florida Supreme Court observed, this evaluation does nothing to the three evaluations rendered at the time of Pardo's trial that he was competent. Further, it is clear that Pardo failed to develop this claim timely in the state court. Pardo's thyroid condition was discovered before his direct appeal brief was filed, and yet it was not addressed or developed until three years later.