Opinion ID: 1266152
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether Nash Is Entitled to a Competency Determination

Text: 1. Whether Nash's Claims Could Benefit from the Ability to Communicate Rationally We next examine the claims that Nash seeks to raise on appeal, and whether those claims could potentially benefit from the right to competence set forth in Rohan. We conclude that they could so benefit. Among the thirteen claims raised in Nash's habeas petition and decided by the district court were allegations that Nash received ineffective assistance of counsel at both the guilt and penalty phases of his trial. These claims included allegations that trial counsel failed to investigate and prepare Nash's defenses, improperly induced Nash to try the case before the trial judge, and failed to investigate and present at the penalty phase available mitigation evidence, including evidence concerning Nash's mental illness, character, background, and family history. Indeed, the district court granted a certificate of appealability on Claim 1, which alleged that Nash was denied effective assistance of counsel at the guilt phase of his trial, and on Claim 2, which alleged that Nash was denied effective assistance of counsel at the penalty phase of his trial. There is no suggestion that counsel may not pursue these claims on appeal. See Reply to Response to Motion at 2 (Two of Mr. Nash's certified claims deal with the ineffectiveness of his counsel at guilt and sentencing.... Because Mr. Nash was never provided any hearing on this claim at either the State or federal level, one of Mr. Nash's arguments on appeal would be that there should be a remand for evidentiary development [on this claim.]). Although we do not yet know all of the arguments Nash's counsel will present in prosecuting this appeal, we are satisfied that, like in Rohan which also involved claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, including allegations that trial counsel failed to present adequate mitigating evidence at the penalty phase[a]t least some of the[appellate issues that counsel have identified] could potentially benefit from [Nash's] assistance. Rohan, 334 F.3d at 818. Again, like the petitioner in Rohan, if [Nash] were competent, he could support [these claims]. He is better positioned than anyone to identify aspects of his personal history that should have been, but were not, elicited. Id. The need for rational communication here is particularly important because Nash has been assisted by several attorneys over the years, including his trial attorney Arthur G. Hazelton, state appellate counsel George Sterling and John Antieau, the attorneys who assisted him in filing his 1987 habeas petition in federal court, and current habeas counsel Thomas Phalen, Jon Sands and Paula Harms, who also represented Nash in the district court. Attempts by Nash's current counsel to contact his trial counsel have been unsuccessful. The information that Nash possesses would provide first-hand insight into the earlier proceedings, insight that might be helpful in ways that Nash's current attorneys cannot currently identify because of his alleged incompetence. See Rohan, 334 F.3d at 818 (Perhaps there are cases where an incompetent petitioner's counsel knows exactly what he needs to know and can't find out. Surely, however, those are the exception rather than the rule.) As the preceding discussion makes clear, Nash's claims may benefit from his ability to communicate rationally with his counsel even though he is prosecuting a habeas appeal, whereas the petitioner in Rohan was litigating his habeas petition in the district court. As noted above, neither Rohan nor post- Rohan cases interpreting or applying Rohan draw a distinction among the various procedural stages of a habeas proceeding, but instead focus on the types of claims at issue. For example, as the Northern District of California recently observed in applying Rohan, claims of innocence and ineffective assistance of counsel in presenting mitigating evidence at the penalty phase of ... trial are claims that could benefit from the ability to communicate rationally. Hill v. Ayers, No. 4-94-cv-641-CW, 2008 WL 683422, at  (N.D.Cal. Mar.10, 2008). Similarly, as the District of Arizona noted in a recent exhaustive opinion examining the contours of Rohan, claims that are resolvable as a pure matter of law may not require the petitioner's assistance. See Gonzales v. Schriro, 617 F.Supp.2d 849, 854-55 (D.Ariz.2008). The Seventh Circuit's opinion in Holmes is also in accord, describingin a case involving an appeal from the denial of habeas reliefineffective assistance of trial counsel as one of the issues that may require a layperson's contribution to counsel's strategy. 506 F.3d at 579-80. In sum, the success of the two ineffective assistance claims on which the district court granted a certificate of appealability may depend on Nash's ability to rationally communicate with counsel. Accordingly, we turn next to whether the evidence of Nash's incompetence is sufficient to warrant a competency determination. 2. Whether Nash Provided Sufficient Evidence of Incompetence to Warrant a Competency Determination In Rohan, because the district court's prior determination that the petitioner was incompetent was not disputed, we assumed that the petitioner was incompetent. 334 F.3d at 807 n. 2. As a result, we left unresolved several important issues, including what showing a petitioner must make to warrant a competency determination and whether the standard [for competence to pursue habeas relief] is the same as the standard for competence to stand trial. Id. at 819 n. 11. Here, in contrast, the State challenges not only Nash's right to competence, but the allegations of incompetence. That is, the State contends that even if the right to competence discussed above extends to an appeal, and even if Nash's claims may potentially benefit from rational communication with his counsel, Nash (1) has failed to proffer sufficient evidence of incompetence to warrant a competency determination; and (2) by his failure to request a Rohan determination in the district court, has waived his opportunity to do so. We disagree. We conclude that Nash has made a threshold showing of incompetence that, at this preliminary stage, warrants a competency determination under any of the various standards we have employed to assess evidence of incompetency. Further, we hold that Nash's failure to seek a competency determination in the district court does not foreclose our consideration of his motion. (i) Nash's Incompetence a. Competence At trial, competence is defined as the ability to understand the proceedings and to assist counsel in preparing a defense. Miles v. Stainer, 108 F.3d 1109, 1112 (9th Cir.1997). A competent defendant possesses 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. Rohan, 334 F.3d at 808 (quoting Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348, 354, 116 S.Ct. 1373, 134 L.Ed.2d 498 (1996)); see also Indiana v. Edwards, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 2379, 2383, 171 L.Ed.2d 345 (2008) (noting distinction between defendants competent to be tried and defendants competent to defend themselves). As Rohan, Holmes and the above discussion make clear, competency to pursue federal habeas relief in a death penalty case requires that the petitioner possess essentially the same mental capacity that renders him competent to stand trial: the ability to understand and communicate rationally with counsel when necessary. See Rohan, 334 F.3d at 813; see also Holmes, 506 F.3d at 579; Mae C. Quinn, Reconceptualizing Competence: An Appeal, 66 Wash. & Lee L.Rev. 259, 301-02 (2009) (discussing Rohan and Holmes 's approach to competence in postconviction proceedings). With these fundamental principles in mind, we turn briefly to the evidence we have deemed sufficient to warrant a competency determination in similar contexts. b. Evidence of Incompetence At trial, the right to competence generally requires that a motion for a competency determination be granted when reasonable cause exists to believe that the defendant is incompetent. See 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a) (2006); see also United States v. Fernandez, 388 F.3d 1199, 1250-51 (9th Cir.2004); United States v. Brown, 943 F.2d 35, 35 (9th Cir.1991). Many factors, including history of mental illness and treatment, a finding of prior insanity, memory problems, erratic behavior, variety and quantity of medications, and attempts at suicide have been considered by courts determining whether a competency hearing should have been granted. See McMurtrey v. Ryan, 539 F.3d 1112, 1118 (9th Cir.2008); Morris v. United States, 414 F.2d 258, 259 (9th Cir.1969). For example, in Rohan, the petitioner suffered from a delusional disorder; in Holmes, the court remanded the case based on affidavits presented by ... counsel suggesting [petitioner's] mental condition had deteriorated. Holmes, 506 F.3d at 577. We are satisfied that Nash has presented sufficient evidence of incompetence to warrant a competency determination under any of the various standards we have articulated. First, according to a psychiatric evaluation conducted by Dr. Barry Morenz, Nashlike the petitioner in Rohan suffers from a delusional disorder which leads him to experience auditory hallucinations, as well as grandiose and paranoid delusions. Nash has also been diagnosed with personality disorder; according to Morenz, he is not competent to proceed with his appeals because he is significantly impaired in his ability to rationally and meaningfully assist his attorneys.... Moreover, although Dr. Morenz opined that [t]reatment with antipsychotic and memory-enhancing medication ... may provide some benefit to ... Mr. Nash[,] he further opined that [e]ven with these interventions, there is not a substantial probability that he can be restored to competency. Second, in addition to Dr. Morenz's diagnoses and opinion, Nash's habeas counsel has filed a sealed declaration outlining her own difficulties in communicating with Nash. Her observations are consistent with Dr. Morenz's, detailing the ways in which Nash's delusional disorder and memory problems substantially impede his ability to rationally communicate with her regarding his personal history and other potentially critical aspects of his appeal. Dr. Morenz's diagnoses and opinion, and the declaration presented by Nash's counsel suggest[ ] that his mental condition ha[s] deteriorated. See Holmes, 506 F.3d at 577 (describing circumstances that warranted limited remand for competency determination). At this preliminary stage, therefore, Nash has presented sufficient evidence of incompetence to warrant a competency determination. (ii) Failure to File a Rohan Motion Last, the State contends that because Nash never sought a competency determination under Rohan in the district court, he has waived the issue and cannot now raise it on appeal. See Fry v. Melaragno, 939 F.2d 832, 834 (9th Cir.1991), We disagree. First, although the limited record reveals that Nash's mental and physical health have been an issue with which habeas counsel are familiar, Dr. Morenz's recent report notes increasing cognitive decline and recent memory failure. While Dr. Morenz's report does not fully explain why counsel did not seek an earlier determination of Nash's mental incompetency, it provides context for counsel's decision to seek a competency determination in this court: ninety-three-year-old Nash's competency continues to decline. More importantly, although the State argues that Nash should be barred from raising an issue on appeal that he did not raise in the district court, Nash's motion for a competency determination does not fit within that circumstance. Nash does not raise the issue of competence to obtain reversal of the district court's judgment. Rather, his counsel raise the issue because it does not appear that Nash is now capable of communicating rationally with them and they seek a limited remand for a factual determination of his competence. The limited nature of the relief sought further supports our conclusion that Nash's failure to seek relief in the district court under Rohan should not preclude consideration of Nash's motion. The ultimate question of how next to proceed must be addressed by this court after the district court makes a competency determination and returns the case to this court for consideration of the merits of Nash's claim. In sum, Nash's rapidly deteriorating mental condition leads us to conclude that the precise issue we consider here whether Nash is competent to pursue the pending appeal of the district court's denial of his habeas petitionis not subject to the waiver rule invoked by the State. Moreover, because the competency determination will afford the State the opportunity to offer all relevant evidence and fully litigate the issue of Nash's competence, we are satisfied that our decision in no way contravenes the policies underlying the waiver rule. See Hormel v. Helvering, 312 U.S. 552, 556, 61 S.Ct. 719, 85 L.Ed. 1037 (1941) (explaining that the importance of the waiver rule lies in our procedural scheme['s] contemplat[ion] that parties shall come to issue in the trial forum vested with authority to determine questions of fact ... [i]n order that parties may have the opportunity to offer all the evidence they believe relevant ... [and] that litigants may not be surprised on appeal by final decision there of issues upon which they have had no opportunity to introduce evidence). We therefore reject the State's contentions to the contrary. For all of the above reasons, we grant Nash's motion for a limited remand. We remand this case to the district court to conduct a competency determination. The court may conduct such proceedings as it deems appropriate to reach a fair and prompt determination of Nash's competence, consistent with the views expressed in this order. The panel shall retain jurisdiction over this appeal. MOTION GRANTED and REMANDED.