Opinion ID: 752168
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mr. Castro's Competency

Text: 14 Mr. Castro argues his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment were violated because the court failed to determine his competency to assist counsel, thereby forcing him to defend himself while incompetent. Mr. Castro's argument is based in part upon what happened in the Kay County proceedings involving the Pappan murder trial. In that case, Mr. Castro's appointed attorney, Kenneth Holmes, told the court prior to trial that he had serious doubts about Mr. Castro's ability to assist him in his defense, and that Mr. Castro needed a psychiatric evaluation. The Kay County court found that there was a genuine doubt about Mr. Castro's competency and ordered him committed to the Eastern State Hospital for an evaluation. Doctor R.C. Garcia, Chief Forensic Psychiatrist at Eastern Hospital, reported to the court that Mr. Castro was competent to stand trial. Mr. Castro appears to argue that, because questions about Mr. Castro's competency arose in the Pappan murder trial in Kay County, Mr. Castro's Noble County attorney, Royce Hobbs, should have raised the issue of competency and sought a competency evaluation and hearing in this case. 15 A defendant has a due process right not to be tried while incompetent. United States v. Williams, 113 F.3d 1155, 1159 (10th Cir.1997). Competence to stand trial requires that a defendant have 'sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding' and 'a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.'  Nguyen, 131 F.3d at 1346 (quoting Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 402, 80 S.Ct. 788, 788, 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960)). If the trial court failed to conduct a competency hearing at the time of trial, [a] habeas petitioner is entitled to a nunc pro tunc evidentiary hearing for the purpose of proving that he was incompetent at the time of trial only when he makes a showing by clear and convincing evidence to raise threshold doubt about his competency. Id. (citations and quotations omitted). Mr. Castro can make such a showing by present[ing] facts sufficient to positively, unequivocally and clearly generate a real, substantial and legitimate doubt concerning his mental capacity. Id. (citations and quotations omitted). 3 16 In this case, neither side sought a competency hearing. Accordingly, we must decide 'whether a reasonable judge, situated as was the trial court judge whose failure to conduct an evidentiary hearing is being reviewed, should have experienced doubt with respect to competency to stand trial.'  Williams, 113 F.3d at 1160 (quoting United States v. Crews, 781 F.2d 826, 833 (10th Cir.1986)). The Supreme Court has described what evidence triggers the need for a competency hearing: evidence of a defendant's irrational behavior, his demeanor at trial, and any prior medical opinion on competence to stand trial are all relevant in determining whether further inquiry is required, but ... even one of these factors standing alone may, in some circumstances, be sufficient. Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 180, 95 S.Ct. 896, 908, 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975). 17 The district court rejected Mr. Castro's argument that there was evidence of his incompetency, stating [a]bsolutely nothing in the Noble County Court records suggests that Castro was not capable of assisting his counsel with a reasonable degree of rational understanding, or that he was not able to have both a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings at the time thereof. Memorandum Op. and Order at 28, R. Vol. I at Tab 24. 4 We agree. 18 We have carefully reviewed the record in this case, and we agree with the district court that nothing in the record raises any doubts about Mr. Castro's competency at the time. Nothing in his testimony suggests that he was incompetent, nor does his attorney ever give any indication that he had doubts about his competency. Without such evidence in this case, the mere fact that questions about his competency were raised in the Pappan murder case does not automatically require an inquiry into his competency in this case. Accordingly, no error resulted from the failure to conduct an evidentiary hearing on, or make further investigation into, his competency to stand trial. 19