Opinion ID: 164890
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mental Evaluation

Text: At the conclusion of testimony on the first day of trial, Mr. Campas told the district judge, outside the presence of the jury, that he had asked his attorney to have him mentally evaluated, and that his attorney had declined to do so. He did not set forth any facts or provide any explanation why a mental evaluation was 1 Mr. Campas did not rely on the wallet problem in his suppression motion in district court, and the district court made no specific finding regarding it. -5- warranted. Defense counsel then addressed the court to explain the circumstances. He quoted from his letter to Mr. Campas in which he explained his refusal to obtain a mental evaluation. In that letter, counsel stated: A review of your last letter to me dated April 3, 2003, reiterates your badfaith desire to have a mental examination. You are correct that I, quote, talked you out of it, unquote, the reason being that you told me you simply wanted to buy time, delay the trial, which constitutes no valid reason for the Court to expend time and monies. As an officer of the Court, I cannot condone such actions and will not participate in same. The Assistant U.S. Attorney then informed the court that no issue regarding Mr. Campas’s mental competency had previously been raised by any of the preceding three lawyers who had represented him. Defense counsel confirmed the prosecutor’s statement, and added that he had seen “no evidence” of mental incompetency in his interactions with Mr. Campas. “The man is alert. He is on top of his game. He is very coy about a lot of things and very articulate about a lot of things.” The district court then rejected Mr. Campas’s request, explaining: I know of no reason, either directly from my own observation of you or indirectly or from any review of any materials in the files of this Court, that it’s appropriate for you to have that evaluation at this hour, and I do not think it is appropriate, and I do not think it is necessary. There’s nothing, not a scintilla of evidence, to suggest that you’re not competent, now or in the past. 18 U.S.C. § 4241 provides: At any time after the commencement of a prosecution for an offense and prior to the sentencing of the defendant, the defendant or the attorney for -6- the Government may file a motion for a hearing to determine the mental competency of the defendant. The court shall grant the motion, or shall order such a hearing on its own motion, if there is reasonable cause to believe that the defendant may presently be suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that he is unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or to assist properly in his defense. Whether to order a competency examination is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Ramirez , 304 F.3d 1033 (10th Cir. 2002); United States v. Prince , 938 F.2d 1092, 1095 (10th Cir. 1991). No competency examination is required when there is minimal or no evidence of incompetency. United States v. Crews , 781 F.2d 826, 833 (10th Cir. 1986). Defendant candidly acknowledges that “[t]here are no facts in the record which support Mr. Campas’s request, nor are there facts which suggest he was competent to stand trial or that he did not have some mental defect which could be raised as a defense.” Def. Br. 16. In light of the absence of facts in support of the request, we cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion. Finally, to the extent Defendant is arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in raising this claim at trial, he must assert that claim on habeas review rather than direct appeal. United States v. Galloway , 56 F.3d 1239, 1240-42 (10th Cir. 1995) (en banc). -7- The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming is AFFIRMED . Entered for the Court, Michael W. McConnell