Court Opinion

ID: 9491505
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 14:15:59.057664+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:54:47.009815
License: Public Domain

TACHA, Circuit Judge.
This appeal invites us to resolve two constitutional questions regarding the relationship between an attorney and a potentially incompetent client in a criminal case. First, we must determine whether a client who may be incompetent to stand trial has a constitutional right to waive his counsel before a hearing on his competency. The second issue presented is whether counsel who moves for an evaluation of the defendant’s competency against the defendant’s wishes thereby render-s ineffective assistance of counsel. Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we answer both questions in the negative.
I.
The defendant was charged with two counts of threatening a federal law enforcement officer and his family, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1)(B). His arraignment was scheduled for June 7, 1996, and from that point the parties have taken a somewhat tortuous course to this appeal.
The arraignment was continued until June 14, 1996, to allow David Conner, the public defender representing the defendant, to familiarize himself with the case. At that time, the defendant pleaded not guilty and advised *1184the court that if he could retain private counsel, he would like to replace Mr. Conner. The Magistrate assured the defendant that he had that option open to him.
On June 20, the day of a scheduled discovery conference, the defendant filed a “Notice of Dismissal of U.S. Federal Public Defender Mr. David Conner and Notice of Stay of Proceedings Pending Procurement of Other Counsel.” The presiding Magistrate agreed to delay the discovery conference for one week, until June 28, 1996, to allow the defendant to retain counsel. The Magistrate, however, did not release the public defender from the case.
The record does not reflect whether the conference scheduled for June 28 ever occurred. Regardless, the defendant did not procure private counsel but continued, throughout the proceedings, to file motions on his own behalf rather than through his lawyer. On July 8, Mr. Conner moved for a determination of the defendant’s competency to stand trial.1 On the basis of that unopposed motion, the court appointed a psychiatrist to examine the defendant and scheduled a hearing on the defendant’s competency for October 18. The defendant missed his appointment with the court-appointed psychiatrist, which triggered a motion by the government to have the defendant committed for the purpose of conducting the preliminary evaluation. See 18 U.S.C. § 4247(b) (stating that for the purpose of conducting an examination pursuant to § 4241(b), “the court may commit the person to be examined for a reasonable period”). The court granted the government’s motion. The defendant was confined until the psychiatric evaluation was completed.
The district court rescheduled the hearing on the defendant’s competency for November 8, 1996, but the defendant did not appear. After the defendant was arrested and his bond revoked, the competency hearing finally took place on December 6, 1996. There, the district court explained why he had not yet ruled on the defendant’s motion to excuse Mr. Connor:
I have not ruled on that motion deliberately ... Iam aware, of course, that under applicable precedent of the United States Supreme Court, a defendant in a criminal case has the right to waive his Sixth Amendment right to counsel and proceed to represent himself. However, in order for that to happen, the Court must find a knowing, intelligent, voluntary waiver of the right to counsel.
... I have not ruled on the motion because I do not think that one can determine whether a person is competent to waive counsel until you can make a determination as to whether Mr. Boigegrain is competent to stand trial.
R.O.A. vol. 11 at 2-3. The court found Mr. Boigegrain incompetent to stand trial and ordered him committed for a period not to exceed four months, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d).
The defendant filed his appeal from that order on December 19, 1996. Counsel for the defendant moved to withdraw the appeal on the basis that this court had no jurisdiction because there was no final order issued. The en banc court found that we have jurisdiction over appeals from section 4241(d) commitment orders. See United States v. Boigegrain, 122 F.3d 1345, 1349 (10th Cir.1997) (en bane) (per curiam) (overruling *1185United States v. Cheama, 730 F.2d 1383 (10th Cir.1984)). The court then ordered briefing on the merits, which are before this panel now.
After the parties submitted briefs on the merits, at the defendant’s request we granted a limited remand so that the district court could make new findings on the defendant’s competency, and if appropriate- enter a plea agreement.2 The district court found the defendant competent and accepted the defendant’s guilty plea. The government then filed a motion to dismiss this appeal for mootness. We took that motion under advisement and address it first.
II.
The government argues that the ease is now moot because Mr. Boigegrain has pleaded guilty to the charge. We disagree. Mr. Boigegrain is appealing the district court’s order, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d), which found him incompetent to stand trial and ordered him committed to the custody of the Attorney General for a period not to exceed four months.' In the defendant’s first appeal of that order, we addressed the mootness question:
Although the defendant’s commitment has concluded, there is no question that a justi-ciable case or controversy is presented that will not be mooted by his release. Because commitments ordered pursuant to § 4241(d) will often be concluded before the appellate process is complete, the issue presented here is ‘“capable of repetition, yet evading review.’ ”
Boigegrain, 122 F.3d at 1347 n. 1 (quoting United States v. Gundersen, 978 F.2d 580, 581 n. 1 (10th Cir.1992)). Because the defendant is appealing his commitment pursuant to section 4241(d), it is his release from that commitment, if anything, that would moot this appeal. The fact that he entered into a plea agreement has no impact on the completely separate commitment issue. Cf. Boi-gegrain, 122 F.3d at 1349 (finding a commitment order under section 4241(d) to be “completely separate from the merits of the action”). We are governed by the law of the case as stated in the previous opinion. Mr. Boigegrain’s appeal is not moot.
III.
A.
The defendant raises three issues on appeal. First, he contends that the proceedings in this case violated his right to waive his counsel and to represent himself. We review the district court’s finding of historical facts for clear error. See, e.g., United States v. Robertson, 45 F.3d 1423, 1430 (10th Cir.1995). We review de novo, however,- the ultimate question of whether a constitutional violation took place. See United States v. Taylor, 113 F.3d 1136, 1140 (10th Cir.1997).
Criminal defendants have a constitutional right, rooted in the Sixth Amendment, to conduct their own defense. See Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). Thus, a lawyer cannot be forced upon a defendant who wishes to act as his own representative, even if self-representation would be detrimental to the defendant. See id. at 834, 95 S.Ct. 2525. In this ease, the defendant moved to dismiss the public defender in June of 1996. The district court did not rule on the motion for over five months, during which time the public defender raised the competency issue and did not argue, as the defendant apparently wished him to, that the defendant was competent to stand trial. The defendant argues that the delayed resolution of his motion and his lawyer’s taking a position contrary to his own denied him the right to waive counsel and represent himself.
An accused who forgoes the assistance of counsel surrenders substantial benefits. Therefore, “in order to represent himself, the accused must ‘knowingly and intelligently’ forgo those relinquished benefits.” Id. at 835, 95 S.Ct. 2525 (quoting Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464-65, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938)); see also United States v. Baker, 84 F.3d 1263, 1264 (10th Cir.1996). The defendant’s decision to waive counsel must be knowing, voluntary, *1186and competent before it can be recognized. See Faretta, 422 U.S. at 835, 95 S.Ct. 2525; Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 399-100, 113 S.Ct. 2680, 125 L.Ed.2d 321 (1993) (“[A] defendant choosing self-representation must do so ‘competently and intelligently’ ....”) (quoting Faretta, 422 U.S. at 835, 95 S.Ct. 2525). The district court had a duty to ensure that the defendant was choosing self-representation in an informed manner be-fore allowing him to proceed on his own.
Here, the court waited to rule on the defendant’s motion to dismiss the public defender until the issue of the defendant’s competency to stand trial had been resolved. That was the most appropriate course because “[l]ogically, the trial court cannot simultaneously question a defendant’s mental competence to stand trial and at one and the same time be convinced that the defendant has knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel.” United States v. Purnett, 910 F.2d 51, 55 (2d Cir.1990). Although that common sense statement almost resolves this matter on its own, a more recent case from the Supreme Court, Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 113 S.Ct. 2680, 125 L.Ed.2d 321 (1993), clarifies it completely. In Godinez, the Court held that the degree of competence necessary to waive the right to counsel is identical to the degree of competence necessary to stand trial. See id. at 399-400, 113 S.Ct. 2680. Therefore, it was impossible for the district court to allow the defendant to waive counsel before determining whether he was competent to stand trial. Before resolving the first question, the court had to resolve the second.
Furthermore, even if a six-month delay in disposing of a defendant’s motion would effectively deny the defendant the right to waive counsel—a question that we need not, and do not, resolve here—the delay in this case was not attributable to - the district court. The district court originally scheduled the competency hearing for October. The time-consuming complications were the defendant’s failure to attend his meeting with the psychiatrist and his failure to appear at the rescheduled competency hearing in November.
B.
The defendant also argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel from the public defender, David Conner. The defendant argues that Mr. Conner abandoned his role as the defendant’s advocate and therefore rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by raising the competency issue against the defendant’s wishes.
“Ineffective assistance of counsel claims should be brought in collateral proceedings, not on direct appeal.” United States v. Galloway, 56 F.3d 1239, 1240 (10th Cir.1995) (en banc). We are reluctant to hear claims of ineffective assistance advanced for the first time in this court because we work at a distinct disadvantage when we operate without the factual development and judicial reasoning afforded by lower court proceedings. See id. (discussing Beaulieu v. United States, 930 F.2d 805, 806-07 (10th Cir.1991) (overruled on other grounds by Galloway, 56 F.3d at 1241)). Therefore, only in the very rare instance that a claim of ineffective assistance is fully developed in the record will we hear it for the first time on appeal. See Galloway, 56 F.3d at 1242.
Normally, we require criminal defendants alleging ineffective assistance of counsel to obtain a ruling by a district court on their argument by way of a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See, e.g., id.; United States v. Yates, 22 F.3d 981, 985-86 (10th Cir.1994). An individual in Mr. Boigegrain’s position, however, cannot file such a motion. Section 2255 allows “[a] prisoner in custody under sentence” to argue that his sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255. A defendant temporarily committed pursuant to section 4241(d) is neither , a prisoner nor under sentence; after being found incompetent to stand trial, he is held in the custody of the attorney general as an accused rather than a criminal offender.
Persons being held because they have been found mentally incompetent can file petitions for writs of habeas corpus instead of motions under section 2255. See 3 Chables Alan Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure § 591 (2d ed.1982); O’Beirne v. Overholser, 287 F.2d 133, 136 (D.C.Cir.1960); Hill v. *1187United States, 206 F.2d 204, 207 (6th Cir.1953). If that course were open to the defendant, we would await a lower court ruling on a habeas petition before reaching the merits. In this case, however, the defendant cannot file a habeas corpus action. A writ of habeas corpus cannot be issued unless the person requesting it is under “restraint,” see 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a), and Mr. Boigegrain has long since been released from his commitment.
The defendant, therefore, has no means by which to attack the commitment order collaterally, making it impossible for us to apply our rule that “claims of constitutionally ineffective counsel should be brought on collateral review.” Galloway, 56 F.3d at 1242. The unusual circumstances of this case, as well as the fact that the record is adequate to decide the matter, lead us to reach the merits of the defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
In order to prove that the public defender rendered ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must show (1) that the counsel’s performance was so deficient that it “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,” and (2) that the deficient performance prejudiced the defendant. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).
With regard to the first question, courts must indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s actions constitute “reasonable professional assistance.” Id. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Nonetheless, the defendant notes correctly that the Sixth Amendment requires a lawyer to act as an advocate for his client. See United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 656, 104 S.Ct. 2039, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984). If counsel does not act as an advocate for the defendant, the process “loses its character as a confrontation between adversaries,” id. at 656-57, 104 S.Ct. 2039, and our entire justice system is premised on the belief that “debate between adversaries is often essential to the truth-seeking function of trials,” Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349, 360, 97 S.Ct. 1197, 51 L.Ed.2d 393 (1977) (plurality opinion), quoted in Cronic, 466 U.S. at 655 n. 14, 104 S.Ct. 2039. “An effective attorney ‘must play the role of an active advocate, rather than a mere friend of the court.’” Osborn v. Shillinger, 861 F.2d 612, 624 (10th Cir.1988) (quoting Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387, 394, 105 S.Ct. 830, 83 L.Ed.2d 821 (1985)).
The defendant argues that his lawyer, the public defender, abandoned his role as the defendant’s advocate and therefore rendered ineffective assistance of counsel in raising the competency issue against the defendant’s wishes. The Sixth Amendment, however, did not require that the public defender adhere to the defendant’s apparent wish to avoid the competency issue. We hold that when a lawyer has reason to believe that her client may not be mentally competent to stand trial, she does not render ineffective assistance of counsel by making her concerns known to the court.
As with the previous issue, common sense all but disposes of the matter. While the Sixth Amendment demands that counsel to criminal defendants act as their advocates, the rule is not absolute in any sense. Counsel does not have to take every position and make every argument that the client requests. See United States v. Dawes, 874 F.2d 746, 748 (10th Cir.1989) (per curiam) (“There is no right to counsel who will blindly follow a defendant’s instructions.”). Requiring a lawyer to argue at the direction of one who may be mentally incompetent—that is, one who seems unable to comprehend the nature of the proceedings against him— serves neither the individual client nor the truth-seeking process. See Brennan v. Blankenship, 472 F.Supp. 149, 156 (W.D.Va. 1979) (“Under any professional standard, it is improper for counsel to blindly rely on the statement of a criminal client whose reasoning abilities are highly suspect.”).
Though this is an issue of first impression in our circuit,3 the appellate opinions that *1188have touched on it all imply that the criminal lawyer’s obligation to advocate the positions of his client is dependent on the client being mentally competent to stand trial. See, e.g., Alvord v. Wainwright, 725 F.2d 1282, 1289 (11th Cir.1984) (“[GJiven [the defendant’s] competency, [the attorney] was ethically bound to follow the client’s wishes.” (emphasis added)). In Clanton v. Bair, 826 F.2d 1354 (4th Cir.1987), the court found that defense counsel who respected his client’s refusal to submit to a psychiatric evaluation had not rendered ineffective assistance of counsel. The court said:
When Clanton rejected his trial lawyer’s suggestion of a psychiatric evaluation, there was no basis for the lawyer’s insistence upon it. Clanton seemed lucid and rational. He gave no indication of any mental or emotional problem. There was no doubt of his competence to stand trial
Id. at 1358. The implication, of course, is that if there were doubt of the defendant’s competence, counsel should not necessarily respect the client’s expressed desires.
This case highlights the fact that in addition to their duties as counselors, attorneys are also officers of the courts. The Constitution prohibits a court from trying defendants who are mentally incompetent. See Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 378, 86 S.Ct. 836, 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966). Of all the actors in a trial, defense counsel has the most intimate association with the defendant. Therefore, the defendant’s lawyer is not only allowed to raise the competency issue, but, because of the importance of the prohibition on trying those who cannot understand proceedings against them, she has a professional duty to do so when appropriate. See, e.g., Vogt v. United States, 88 F.3d 587, 592 (8th Cir.1996) (“ ‘The failure of trial counsel to request a competency hearing where there was evidence raising a substantial doubt about a petitioner’s competence to stand trial may constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.’ ”) (quoting Speedy v. Wyrick, 702 F.2d 723, 726 (8th Cir.1983)). In fact, defendants often contend in collateral proceedings that their trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to request a competency hearing. See, e.g., Clanton, 826 F.2d at 1357-58.
Counsel’s actions in this case were fully consistent with the American Bar Association Standards, which are a guide in determining reasonable professional behavior. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052. The pertinent standard states:
Defense counsel should move for evaluation of the defendant’s competence to stand trial whenever the defense counsel has a good faith doubt as to the defendant’s competence. If the client objects to such a motion being made, counsel may move for evaluation over the client’s objection. In any event, counsel should make known to the court and to the prosecutor those facts known to counsel which raise the good faith doubt of competence.
ABA Standaeds for Criminal Justice Standard 7-4.2(c) (emphasis added).
Based on this ABA standard as well as the other cited authorities, the entire panel agrees that defense counsel may move for a competency determination against a client’s wishes without violating the Fifth or Sixth Amendment. The dissent, however, concludes that although defense counsel may (and probably must) raise the issue, she cannot continue to represent her client when the client does not agree that he is incompetent. According to the dissent, the Constitution requires that the defendant’s view must be presented, and therefore substitute counsel be appointed to argue as the defendant wishes. In support of its position, the dissent cites the commentary to Standard 7-4.2, which notes that when an attorney advises the court of her client’s possible incompetence, “[t]his may require, of course, that an attorney seek judicial permission to withdraw as defense counsel because of a conflict of interest.” Id. Commentary Introduction. The dissenting opinion assumes that the “conflict” referred to here is the conflict that arises when the lawyer and his client have contrary beliefs regarding the defendant’s competency. See Dissenting Op. at 7 (“[C]ir-cumstances like those before us are just what the drafter of the ABA Standards must have had in mind in their commentary about the necessity of the attorney seeking leave to withdraw.”).
*1189The conflict referred to in the commentary, however, is not that between the client and the lawyer. Further paragraphs in the commentary make clear that the conflict addressed by the ABA Standard is altogether different. The ABA Standard recognizes that even among defendants whose competency to stand trial is dubious, in some instances it is in the best interest of the defendant to proceed to trial without a competency determination. For instance, if the prosecution has a weak case or the crime is a minor one, the defendant might prefer the small risk of conviction or relatively minor punishment to the opprobrium and possible long-term institutionalization that accompany a finding of incompetency. See Standard 7-4.2 Commentary (“Because of the sometimes severe consequences traditionally attendant upon a determination of incompetence, defense counsel may conclude that it is better for a technically incompetent defendant to proceed to trial.”). In such a case, the lawyer’s duty to represent the client’s best interest requires one course of action, while the duty to maintain the integrity of the court by advising it of a defendant’s possible incompetence requires another. See id. The standard resolves that conflict in favor of the court.
For the above reasons, the defendant’s disagreement with the public defender’s evaluation of his competence did not trigger the withdrawal procedure of Standard 7-4.2. Furthermore, considering the seriousness of the offense with which the defendant was charged, see 18 U.S.C. § 115(b)(l)(4), there was no conflict between the defense counsel’s duty to serve his client’s best interest and to raise the competency issue. Both duties required him to raise the competency issue with the court. Thus, the conflict-of-interest language in Standard 7-4.2 is inap-posite. Nothing else in the ABA Standards or the constitutional decisions bar defense counsel from arguing—or, as in this case, merely presenting testimony on—the point she was required to raise. See Hull v. Freeman, 932 F.2d 159, 169 (3d Cir.1991) (“[W]e think it axiomatic that the desire of a defendant whose mental faculties are in doubt to be found competent does not absolve counsel of his or her independent professional responsibility to put the government to its proof at a competency hearing when the case for competency is in serious question.”), overruling on other grounds recognized in Caswell v. Ryan, 953 F.2d 853 (3d Cir.1992); Bundy v. Dugger, 816 F.2d 564, 566 n. 2 (11th Cir.1987) (“If defense counsel suspects that the defendant is unable to consult with him with a reasonable degree of rational understanding, he cannot blindly accept his client’s demand that his competency not be challenged.”) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
The public defender’s actions in this ease did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness, and therefore he did not render ineffective assistance to the defendant.
C.
Finally, the defendant argues that the evidence does not support the district court’s finding that the defendant was mentally incompetent to stand trial. Competency to stand trial is a factual determination that can be set aside only if it is clearly erroneous. See United States v. Crews, 781 F.2d 826, 833 (10th Cir.1986) (per curiam). In order for a defendant to be competent to stand trial, he must have “sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding,” and also a “rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.” Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 402, 80 S.Ct. 788, 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960) (per curiam). “In making a determination of competency, the district court may rely on a number of factors, including medical opinion and the court’s observation of the defendant’s comportment.” United States v. Nichols, 56 F.3d 403, 411 (2d Cir.1995).
In this case, the district court relied on the testimony of psychiatrist Rebecca Barkhorn, who evaluated the defendant at the court’s request. Dr. Barkhorn testified that the defendant was delusional and suffered from “paranoid ideation,” causing him to believe that his lawyer was participating in a conspiracy, along with the prosecutor and the judge, to incarcerate him for reasons unrelated to the charge against him. In her opinion the substitution of alternate counsel would not solve the problem, as the defendant *1190would be unable to trust or work with any attorney who did not share his beliefs.
Dr. Barkhorn described the defendant’s delusions in some detail and stated that they interfered substantially with his ability to understand events, such as the criminal proceedings against him, because he could only evaluate those events through the prism of his delusions. According to the psychiatrist, the defendant’s inability to think rationally about the case was evidenced by, among other things, his belief that the Immigration and Naturalization Service was somehow involved in the case against him and that the case also directly related to the abortion of a child that he had conceived sometime in the past. Dr. Barkhorn concluded that the defendant did not have “a rational understanding of many aspects of the case.”
In addition to Dr. Barkhorn’s testimony, the court relied on its own observation of the defendant’s behavior, as well as the defendant’s pro se filings in the case, which the court described as “irrational.” We do not find the court’s description of the defendant’s pleadings clearly erroneous. Nor did the court clearly err in finding that Dr. Bark-horn’s testimony established that the defendant was not competent to stand trial. To the contrary, Dr. Barkhorn’s testimony touched heavily on the two relevant questions — the defendant’s ability to consult with an attorney, and his ability to understand the proceedings against him.
IV.
We hold that the proceedings in this ease did not violate the defendant’s right to self-representation. Furthermore, we hold that a lawyer with a reasonable doubt regarding the competency of his client to stand trial does not render ineffective assistance of counsel by raising the competency issue against the wishes of his client. Finally, we find that the evidence supports the district court’s finding that the defendant was incompetent to stand trial. All other pending motions are denied.
We AFFIRM.

. Determining whether an accused is competent to stand trial is a three step process. See generally United States v. Deters, 143 F.3d 577, 579-80 (10th Cir.1998) (reviewing the process). First, if there is "reasonable cause to believe that the defendant may presently be suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent,” the court may order a psychiatric or psychological examination of the defendant. 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a). At the second stage, the court uses the psychological report and conducts a hearing to determine whether the defendant is competent. If the defendant is not found to be competent, the court must order the defendant hospitalized for up to four months to determine whether the defendant will become competent in the foreseeable future. The court may order additional hospitalization if it finds there is a substantial probability that within the additional time, the defendant will become competent. See id. § 4241(d). At the third stage, after the specified period of confinement has expired, the court determines whether the defendant is competent and thus ready to stand trial. If still found not to be competent, the defendant must be released unless the court finds that he presents a substantial risk of harm to others. See id. §§ 4241(d), 4246; United States v. Steil, 916 F.2d 485, 486-87 (8th Cir.1990).

. Defendant spent approximately four months at the federal medical center and then was released after experts determined that he had been restored to competence.

. We have found only one line of cases, in California, addressing the precise issue before us in this case. See People v. Harris, 14 Cal.App.4th 984, 994, 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 92, 98 (Cal.Ct.App.1993) (“We agree with the basic holding in Bol-den that defense counsel does not provide ineffective assistance of counsel or violate the defendant's due process rights by seeking to prove the defendant's incompetence over the defendant's objections.”).