Court Opinion

ID: 9826962
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:01:08.568123+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:15:51.454685
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12931    Document: 32-1     Date Filed: 08/31/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-12931
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       JOHN L. MCCARTHY,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Middle District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 5:21-cr-00061-RBD-PRL-1
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-12931     Document: 32-1      Date Filed: 08/31/2023    Page: 2 of 3

       2                      Opinion of the Court                22-12931

       Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and WILSON and LUCK, Cir-
       cuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               John McCarthy appeals his commitment to the custody of
       the Attorney General for examination of his competency to stand
       trial, 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d), and argues that the commitment violates
       his due process rights. We affirm.
              In September 2021, a federal grand jury charged McCarthy
       with attempted sex trafficking of a minor, id. §§ 1591(a)(1), (b)(1)
       and 1594(a), because he allegedly attempted to have a sexual en-
       counter with a three-year-old child. After McCarthy, who was 91
       years old when arrested, was found unresponsive in his jail cell and
       treated at a hospital, he was released on bond to home detention.
               A few months later, McCarthy’s counsel informed the dis-
       trict court that her client likely was incompetent to stand trial due
       to dementia and other end-of-life conditions. The district court re-
       quested briefing on whether it must commit him to the custody of
       the Attorney General for medical care to determine restorability,
       id. § 4241(d). The government responded that the plain language
       of section 4241(d) was mandatory. McCarthy’s counsel agreed that
       the statute required commitment for a restorability evaluation but
       argued that commitment was pointless and would violate his due-
       process rights because the health professionals she consulted as-
       sessed him as unrestorable.
USCA11 Case: 22-12931       Document: 32-1      Date Filed: 08/31/2023      Page: 3 of 3

       22-12931                Opinion of the Court                           3

              After a hearing, a magistrate judge found McCarthy incom-
       petent to stand trial, as both parties had conceded. The magistrate
       judge determined, based on our precedent applying section
       4241(d), that McCarthy must be committed to the custody of the
       Attorney General for a determination of restorability. The district
       court, over McCarthy’s objections, adopted the commitment or-
       der.
               Our precedent forecloses McCarthy’s due-process argu-
       ments. In United States v. Donofrio, we held that, under section
       4241(d), “[o]nce the district court decides that a defendant is incom-
       petent to stand trial, it is appropriate that he be hospitalized for a
       careful determination of the likelihood of regaining mental capac-
       ity to stand trial.” 896 F.2d 1301, 1303 (11th Cir. 1990). McCarthy
       argues, as Donofrio did, that his commitment violates due process
       concerns under Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972), because his
       competency is unlikely to be restored and he is close to death. But
       we have explained that the requirement in section 4241(d), enacted
       in response to Jackson, that the commitment period be “reasona-
       ble” for the purpose of regaining competency and be for no more
       than four months, satisfies due process. Donofrio, 896 F.2d at 1303.
       And because the statute plainly requires that a district court “shall
       commit the defendant” if it finds he is incompetent to stand trial,
       18 U.S.C. § 4241(d) (emphasis added), the “permanency of [his]
       condition [is] . . . for later consideration by the court.” Donofrio, 896
       F.2d at 1303.
              We AFFIRM McCarthy’s order of commitment.