Opinion ID: 808733
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Competency to Plead Guilty

Text: Fuenmayor-Arevalo first argues that the district court clearly erred in determining that he was competent at the time he entered his guilty plea. We review for clear error the district court’s competency determination. United States v. Izquierdo, 448 F.3d 1269, 1276 (11th Cir. 2006). This determination is clearly erroneous only if we are “left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Rodriguez-Lopez, 363 F.3d 1134, 1137 (11th Cir. 2004) (quotation marks omitted). When faced with “diametrically opposite expert testimony, a district court does not clearly err simply by crediting one opinion over another where other record evidence exists to support the conclusion.” Battle v. United States, 419 F.3d 1292, 1299 (11th Cir. 2005) (quotation marks omitted). Further, an expert opinion as to competency is not binding on the district court if there is reason to doubt it. Izquierdo, 448 F.3d at 1279. “The due process clause prohibits the trial or guilty plea conviction of a person who is mentally incompetent.” Sheley v. Singletary, 955 F.2d 1434, 1437 (11th Cir. 1992). The mere presence of mental illness at the time of pleading does not necessarily render a defendant incompetent. Rather, the standard for determining competency to plead is, in part, whether the defendant has sufficient 16 Case: 11-13913 Date Filed: 09/18/2012 Page: 17 of 24 present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of understanding. See 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a); Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 402, 80 S.Ct. 788, 788–89 (1960). Absent evidence of an inability to assist counsel, the defendant’s “low intelligence, mental deficiency, bizarre, volatile, or irrational behavior, or the use of anti-psychotic drugs is not sufficient to show incompetence.” Pardo v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 587 F.3d 1093, 1101 (11th Cir. 2009). A defendant must demonstrate his incompetency by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Bradley, 644 F.3d 1213, 1268 (11th Cir. 2011). Here, we cannot say the district court clearly erred in determining that Fuenmayor-Arevalo was competent at the time he entered his guilty plea. At the evidentiary hearing, the magistrate judge encountered irreconcilable testimony from two experts as to Fuenmayor-Arevalo’s competence. Given this irreconcilable testimony, the magistrate judge was free to credit one expert over the other. The magistrate judge expressly credited Dr. Luis’s findings, and nothing suggests that his testimony was in any way unreliable. Rather, Dr. Luis had the benefit of 30 days’ worth of the detention-center staff’s observations of Fuenmayor-Arevalo, and Dr. Luis based his findings on those observations and on Fuenmayor-Arevalo’s rational responses and understanding of the roles of the judge, prosecutor, and defense attorney in his criminal case. Dr. Luis also noted 17 Case: 11-13913 Date Filed: 09/18/2012 Page: 18 of 24 that Fuenmayor-Arevalo had exhibited adaptive functioning in the detentioncenter environment and that he successfully informed medical personnel at the county jail about his recently diagnosed hypertension and high cholesterol. Furthermore, other evidence in the record supports a finding of competency. For example, three of Fuenmayor-Arevalo’s codefendants, including his grandnephew and son-in-law, stated that Fuenmayor-Arevalo seemed intelligent and was capable of learning. Further, in a proffer to the FBI shortly before the plea colloquy, Fuenmayor-Arevalo explained his earlier denial of guilt and detailed his role in the drug-smuggling venture. He also admitted to accepting 1.5 million Colombian Pesos to transport the drugs because he needed the money to get back on his feet. At the evidentiary hearing, one of the codefendant’s attorneys testified that Fuenmayor-Arevalo told him that Fuenmayor-Arevalo knew that the fishing boat was transporting cocaine. Finally, during the plea colloquy, the magistrate judge observed that Fuenmayor-Arevalo appeared to be “fully competent and capable of entering an informed plea.” Given all this evidence, the district court did not clearly err in finding Fuenmayor-Arevalo competent to plead guilty.