Court Opinion

ID: 2965219
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:37:25.434318+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:37:26.885703
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 97-1998

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                 STEPHEN F. KIVLEHAN,

                                      Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                     [Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Boudin, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________

                            Aldrich, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________

                              and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                                 ____________________

            Walter  F.  McKee  with  whom  Lipman  &  Katz  was on  brief  for
            _________________              _______________
        appellant.
            Margaret D.  McGaughey,  Assistant  United States  Attorney,  with
            ______________________
        whom  Gail F.  Malone, Assistant  United States  Attorney, and  Jay P.
              _______________                                           ______
        McCloskey, United States Attorney, were on brief for appellee.
        _________

                                 ____________________

                                  February 27, 1998

                                 ____________________

                      ALDRICH, Senior  Circuit Judge.   Defendant Stephen
                               _____________________

            F. Kivlehan, sentenced  as an armed career  offender pursuant

            to  U.S.S.G.   4B1.4(b)(3)(A), whose  conviction was under 18

            U.S.C.   922(g)  for, as  a felon, being  in possession  of a

            firearm,  appeals for  evidentiary  error;  for  not,  as  an

            indigent,  being   provided  with  funds  for  a  psychiatric

            examination prior to  sentencing; for the court's  refusal to

            hold a competency hearing, and for  its adding a point to his

            offense  level  for using  the firearm  in connection  with a

            crime of violence.  We affirm.

                                 Fingerprint Testing
                                 ___________________

                      Defendant  was  arrested after  having  alerted his

            neighbors  by the  noise of  a vigorous  sexual and  physical

            assault on his  wife.  After receiving consent  to search the

            premises, the police  found a revolver that  defendant's wife

            adequately connected with  the incident, post.   Witnesses at
                                                     ____

            trial   testified  to  the  uniqueness  of  the  revolver,  a

            specially  built  competition  pistol,  and  to  having  seen

            defendant previously with  his hands on it.   However, it was

            returned from  testing for  prints with  none of  defendant's

            found.

                      Over defendant's objection,  a police detective was

            allowed to  testify that in  his twenty years  experience, it

            was "very  rare" to  match positively a  known set  of prints

            with those  found on a weapon -- in  fact, he could recall no

                                         -3-

            case.    The  objection  made   was  hearsay.    This  is  an

            interesting question.  The witness  was speaking from his own

            experience,  but the  effect, perhaps, was  to vouch  for the

            accuracy of past reports or the testing process itself.

                      In   any   event,  this   whole   matter  was   not

            prejudicial.  The revolver had a serial number.  It was noted

            at the time of the arrest; the revolver at the trial  had the

            same  number.  Also, four witnesses positively identified it,

            including  both  its  prior  owner  as  well  as  defendant's

            brother,  a professional gunsmith.   Of what  consequence the

            absence of fingerprints?   Given such  overwhelming evidence,

            any  error  in   admitting  the  detective's   testimony  was

            harmless.  See  United States v. Bartelho, 129  F.3d 663, 670
                       ___  _____________    ________

            (1st  Cir. 1997).    We pass  the question  whether defendant

            himself first "opened the door" to this testimony.

                              Mental Competency Testing
                              _________________________

                      There was  no claim  that defendant  was unable  to

            stand  trial,  or  that he  had  any  mental defect  defense.

            However, after trial, defendant's counsel asked for funds for

            psychiatric testing, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.   3006A(e)(1), and

            later moved to determine  defendant's competency, pursuant to

            18  U.S.C.   4241.    His  psychological  condition,  it  was

            thought,  would be relevant to where  in the applicable range

            he  should be sentenced and, also, whether downward departure

            under U.S.S.G.    5K2.13 (diminished capacity)  could be had.

                                         -4-

            Counsel's most  tangible basis  was the  fact that  defendant

            would not  communicate with  him and  rejected all  his mail,

            returned  unopened.  Apart  from that were  little fragments,

            including general  comments from defendant's  mother and  his

            probation   officer   about   his   apparent,   lay-described

            "paranoia," and the argument that unless a test was made, how

            could it be known that it was not needed?

                      Whether  to   authorize  funds   for  psychological

            testing is within the  trial court's discretion.   Cf. United
                                                               ___ ______

            States  v. Mateos-Sanchez,  864 F.2d  232,  239-40 (1st  Cir.
            ______     ______________

            1988) (investigative  expenses).  Refusal  is not  reversible

            absent  clear and  convincing evidence  of  prejudice to  the

            accused.  See United  States v. Canessa, 644 F.2d 61, 64 (1st
                      ___ ______________    _______

            Cir. 1981).    A determination of competency  may be had when

            there is reasonable  cause to believe that the defendant, due

            to mental  defect,  is unable  to understand  the nature  and

            consequences  of the  proceedings against  him  or to  assist

            properly in his defense.   See 18 U.S.C.   4241.   To be able
                                       ___

            to  assist  in one's  defense  means  to  have a  "sufficient

            present  ability  to  consult  with  [one's]  lawyer  with  a

            reasonable degree of rational  understanding."  United States
                                                            _____________

            v. Lebron, 76  F.3d 29, 31 (1st  Cir.), cert. denied, 116  S.
               ______                               ____________

            Ct. 2537  (1996).   Whether to  hold a    4241  hearing is  a

            matter  within the trial  judge's discretion, reviewable only

                                         -5-

            for abuse.  See United States v. Morgano, 39 F.3d 1358,  1373
                        ___ _____________    _______

            (7th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1133 (1995).
                             ____________

                      Given  the posture, all  defendant asked  for, with

            evidence  of  incompetency,  was  a  favorable  exercise   of

            discretion in sentencing.  The court's refusal to  pursue the

            matter,  we think, indicates a  disinclination to be any more

            favorable than it  was.  Further, the decision  was based, in

            part, on  observations of  defendant's behavior  during trial

            and  sentencing.     The  record  expressly  reflects   noted

            instances of communication between defendant and  his counsel

            during the  latter.   We have  reviewed the  district court's

            findings "comprehensively," Lebron,  76 F.3d at 32;  read the
                                        ______

            record,   and  listened   to,  in   effect,   testimony  from

            defendant's trial counsel, and we think the case  well summed

            up by the court.

                      If  I  thought   for  a  minute  that   a
                      competency  exam  or a  psychiatric  exam
                      would  in any way  flush out any problems
                      that may exist or be determinative of any
                      issue here, I'd order it, but that's  not
                      the case  in the court's  humble opinion.
                      And if I  were to order  competency exams
                      on   each   one   of   these   sentencing
                      proceedings,    there    aren't    enough
                      psychiatrists   and    psychologists   to
                      accommodate all the competency exams.  It
                      is not unusual . . . for defendants, once
                      they've gone through trial and are facing
                      sentence,   to  develop   all  kinds   of
                      anxieties. . . .   [I]t would  be strange
                      if  they didn't.  And I think that's what
                      we have here, and I'm not  a psychiatrist
                      or a  psychologist, but I'm not  going to
                      delay  this  matter  any further  on  the
                      basis  of  what  I have  before  me  now,

                                         -6-

                      unless  someone can  convince me  that it
                      would be useful.

                           And   that,    coupled   with    the
                      defendant's  request to  get this  matter
                      over with, which is  really what he wants
                      to do I  think, that's what I'm  going to
                      do.

            We find no abuse or prejudice.

                                    Offense Level
                                    _____________

                      Finally,   defendant  complains   of  the   court's

            connecting  the weapon  to the  assault.   The import  of the

            alleged error was assigning offense level 34 rather  than 33,

            making the applicable sentencing range 262-327 months instead

            of  235-293.   Under U.S.S.G.    4B1.4(b)(3)(A), the  greater

            figure applies if the firearm was "used or possessed . . . in

            connection with a  crime of  violence."   It is  acknowledged

            that  "'in connection with' should be interpreted broadly and

            that  where a  defendant's possession  of a  firearm aids  or

            facilitates the  commission of another offense, the requisite

            link is present."   United States v.  Thompson, 32 F.3d 1,  7
                                _____________     ________

            (1st Cir. 1994) (footnote omitted).

                      Reviewing the district  court's findings for  clear

            error,  see United  States v.  Gary,  74 F.3d  304, 317  (1st
                    ___ ______________     ____

            Cir.),  cert. denied,  116 S.Ct. 2567  (1996), we  find none.
                    ____________

            The   defendant  had  a  history  of  threatening  his  wife,

            sometimes with firearms.  During the events precipitating his

            arrest,  he placed  the gun  on  the floor  of the  apartment

            bedroom, openly visible.   He glanced  menacingly at the  gun

                                         -7-

            and then his wife, which she understood to be a threat, as he

            attempted to have  her facilitate a sexual  encounter between

            him and  another woman.   When that failed, he  compelled his

            wife to endure three hours of sexual and physical abuse, some

            of which  occurred in the room  with the gun.   He repeatedly

            told her  that, in  her words, "You  probably ain't  going to

            make it  through the night."  She said  she did not scream or

            cry out  because she was  scared "because there was  a loaded

            gun right beside the bed."  It is no stretch to conclude that

            the  presence of  the gun  emboldened  the defendant  and, in

            part, threatened  his victim into  submission, and  therefore

            "aid[ed] or facilitat[ed]" the assault.  Thompson, 32 F.3d at
                                                     ________

            7; cf. United States  v. Sturtevant, 62 F.3d 33, 34 (1st Cir.
               ___ _____________     __________

            1995) (per curiam).

                      Affirmed.
                      _________

                                         -8-