Opinion ID: 78507
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Rejection of Pardo's Competency Claim

Text: Pardo argues that, although his trial counsel did not formally request a competency hearing or determination, the trial court should have sua sponte ordered a competency hearing because it should have had a bona fide doubt as to Pardo's competence based on his inability to assist his attorney, his efforts to undermine his attorney, and his trial counsel's doubts as to Pardo's competence. He maintains that, during both the court-appointed sanity evaluations and the trial court's guilt and penalty court proceedings, he made bizarre statements that demonstrated his lack of (1) sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding, and (2) a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings. He cites to his trial testimony regarding the murders; his description of the victims as parasites, leeches, and undesirable dregs of society; the photographs that he took of the victims to capture their spirit on film; and his process of burning the photographs and sen[ding] their souls to the eternal fires of damnation of hell for the misery they caused on earth while they were alive. R1-10, Exh. App. L, Vol. 11 at 3565-67, 3641. Pardo explained that he learned that a spirit stays within the body [for] three to five minutes after the person dies from one of his 500 or so books on Naziism. Id. at 3568-69. He commented that Hitler rooted out the evil [and despite the deaths of children] was a hero. Id. at 3570-72. He linked the drug dealers to Communists and contended that, but for his actions in killing drug dealers, no one was going to impose the absolute justice that was his goal to punish the drug dealers. Id. at 3572-74, 3577. He maintains that it is irrational to plead not guilty by reason of insanity and then to tell the jury that he disagrees with his own defense and that he is not insane. He contends that his position is supported by the argument made by his attorney, just before Pardo made a statement to the jury during the penalty phase, that he did not believe Pardo was competent to understand whether his statement would help him or hurt him. R1-10, Exh. App. L, Vol. 12 at 4182. He argues that the Florida Supreme Court's decision was contrary to clearly established federal law. During the pretrial proceedings, the trial court appointed psychologist Dr. Merry Haber to examine Pardo. Dr. Haber was directed to report her findings only to Pardo's counsel. After receiving Dr. Haber's oral report, Pardo's attorney filed a motion to rely on an insanity defense. When the trial court offered to have experts appointed for a competency examination and to set a hearing, Pardo's attorney, Guralnick, responded that Pardo was competent and neither he nor any mental health expert had said that he was incompetent to stand trial. Guralnick also stipulated that his motion was based solely on his insanity at the time of the offense. Thereafter, the trial court announced that it would appoint experts to examine Pardo regarding his sanity at the time of the offenses, but would not appoint experts to examine Pardo's competency in view of [his] counsel's announcement[] that he was competent to stand trial. R1-10, Exh. App. L, Vol. 7 at 1440. The order appointing the experts, Dr. Leonard Haber, Dr. Sanford Jacobson, and Dr. Lloyd Richard Miller, however, included competency as one of the requested evaluations and the trial court did not specify that the evaluation was to be on sanity at the time of the offenses alone. Four mental health experts testified during Pardo's trial, and each found Pardo competent to stand trial. Defense witness Dr. Syvil Marquit testified that Pardo was insane, but was competent to stand trial. Prosecution witnesses psychologist Dr. Leonard Haber and psychiatrists Dr. Jacobson and Dr. Miller testified that they had examined Pardo and that he was competent to stand trial. The jail psychiatrist examined Pardo on the day before the penalty phase began and his attorney opined that Pardo was not competent to make his statement to the jury, and also found him competent. Pardo's guilt phase testimony was coherent and directly responsive to the questions asked. He was aware of the crimes with which he was charged, provided a legally correct definition of homicide, and was aware of the potential penalty. On direct appeal, the Florida Supreme Court found the issue meritless and stated that: There was no requirement [that the trial court order a hearing on Pardo's competency to stand trial]. When trial counsel requested that experts be appointed to examine Pardo and determine his sanity at the time of each episode, the [trial] court asked if counsel wanted experts also appointed to determine competency and offered to hold a hearing on the subject. Counsel stipulated that his client was competent and repeated that he only wanted a determination of sanity. The court-appointed experts examined Pardo, found him to have been sane, and also determined that he was competent to stand trial. Thus, not only was there no reason for the court to have ordered a competency hearing, but also there was no prejudice to Pardo, as the hearing would not have benefitted him. Pardo I, 563 So. 2d at 79. The district court held that the Florida Supreme Court's rejection of this claim was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established United States Supreme Court precedent. Pardo IV at 10. A trial judge must conduct a sua sponte sanity hearing if the defendant's conduct and the evidence raises as bona fide doubt regarding the defendant's competence to stand trial. Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 385-86, 86 S. Ct. 836, 842 (U.S. 1966). A defendant is competent to stand trial if he possesses (1) sufficient present ability to consult with his attorney with a reasonable degree of rational understanding, and (2) a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings against him. Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 80 S. Ct. 788, 789 (1960) (per curiam); Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.211(a)(1). Pardo expressly declined the trial court's offer to hold a competency hearing, his attorney stipulated to his competence, and four mental health experts testified that Pardo was competent. The district court did not err in finding that the Florida Supreme Court's decision on this issue was neither contrary to nor involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.