Opinion
CASE NO. 09-CR-00182 AWI BAM
02-28-2013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ISIDRO MENDOZA-CHAVEZ, Defendant.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT DEFENDANT BE FOUND NOT
COMPETENT TO PROCEED TO TRIAL
This case was referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for processing in accordance with the Magistrate Act, 28 U.S.C.A. § 636, and Local Rule 302. Upon motion of defendant Isidro Mendoza-Chavez, and order of the court, a psychiatric/psychological examination was conducted, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 4241 and 4242. After the appropriate report was submitted, this matter came on calendar for a hearing on February 27, 2013. The defendant appeared personally and with appointed counsel, Assistant Federal Defender Marc Days. Assistant United States Attorney Mia Giacomazzi appeared for plaintiff United States.
Lisa Hope, Psy.D., Chief/Forensic Psychologist, submitted a report, which was provided to plaintiff and defendant. Each party waived cross-examination of Dr. Hope. The evaluation was also introduced into evidence without objection. Dr. Hope conducted assessment procedures of defendant Isidro Mendoza-Chavez including clinical interviews, observation of behavior at the facility, a review of legal documents, and administration of various standardized psychological tests. Dr. Hope concluded that, based on her evaluation of defendant Isidro Mendoza-Chavez, defendant is suffering from Paranoid Type of Schizophrenia which marginally impairs his ability to understand the nature and consequences of the court proceeding against him but significantly impairs his current ability to assist counsel in his defense. No additional evidence was introduced. Dr. Hope was also of the opinion that defendant Isidro Mendoza-Chavez can probably be restored to competence by appropriate psychiatric care, perhaps with the need for medication. Dr. Hope recommended that defendant Isidro Mendoza-Chavez be committed for medical treatment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §4241(d). The parties did not object to Dr. Hope's evaluation.
IT IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED that defendant Isidro Mendoza-Chavez be found, by a preponderance of the evidence, to be presently 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. It is further RECOMMENDED that the defendant be committed to the custody of the Attorney General, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d)(1), for a reasonable period of time, not to exceed 120 days, to attempt to restore the defendant to competence. It is further RECOMMENDED that prior to the expiration of the 120-day period, the court be advised whether there is a substantial probability that in the foreseeable future, the defendant will attain the capacity to permit the trial to proceed, and whether commitment is necessary for an additional reasonable period of time until:
(a) his mental condition is so improved that trial may proceed, if the court finds that there is a substantial probability that within such additional period of time he will attain the capacity to permit the trial to proceed; or
(b) the pending charges against him are disposed of according to law; whichever is earlier.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this action, pursuant to Title 28 of the United States Code section 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court's Local Rule 304. Within ten (10) days of service of this recommendation, any party may file written objections to these findings and recommendations with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." The district judge will review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations pursuant to Title 28 of the United States Code section 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the district judge's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
If the parties have no objection to these Findings and Recommendations, they are directed to file a "Notice of No Objection to Findings and Recommendation re Competency."
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Barbara A. McAuliffe
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE