Summary
affirming magistrate judge's denial of motion to reconsider competency in case where defendant "expressed an interest in pleading not guilty because he hadn't done anything" and "stated his belief that if he were found not guilty be reason of insanity, 'nothing would happen, [he] could go home"'
Summary of this case from United States v. AllenOpinion
8:03CR59
May 27, 2004
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the court is defendant Jose Luis Hernandez-Garcia's appeal, Filing No. 51, of Magistrate Judge Gossett's denial of the defendant's motion, Filing No. 44, to reconsider the defendant's competency to stand trial. Upon careful review of the defendant's statement of appeal, Magistrate Judge Gossett's order, Filing No. 48, the record, briefs, and applicable law, I find that the magistrate judge's order should be affirmed. Hernandez-Garcia's appeal is therefore dismissed.
BACKGROUND
Defendant Hernandez-Garcia is from rural Aguascalientes, Mexico, and has to date received no formal education. Holton Eval. at 2 (sealed; hereafter, "Eval."). Hernandez-Garcia speaks no English, and neither reads nor writes Spanish. Id.
On July 29, 2003, counsel for Hernandez-Garcia raised the issue of whether Hernandez-Garcia was competent to stand trial. Filing No. 23. Magistrate Judge Gossett, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241, ordered an evaluation of Hernandez-Garcia's competency to stand trial. Filing No. 26. A forensic psychologist, Shelia M.B. Holton, Psy. D., evaluated Hernandez-Garcia and determined that he understood that he been charged with a crime, acknowledged the behavior which served as the basis for the charges, and recognized that his guilt or innocence would be decided in court. Holton Eval. at 8. Dr. Holton also determined that Hernandez-Garcia is willing to work with counsel but struggled with abstract concepts such as plea agreements and sentencing options. Id. Dr. Holton further determined that although Hernandez-Garcia's knowledge of the legal system and possible defense options was limited, these knowledge deficits were related to "life experiences and language barriers as opposed to any mental illness or cognitive or intellectual deficits." Id. Dr. Holton ultimately concluded that Hernandez Garcia was able to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings and could assist properly in his own defense. Id. Dr. Holton also noted that Hernandez-Garcia could participate meaningfully in the legal proceedings only with additional information about the legal and sentencing process. Id.
Pursuant to Dr. Holton's report, Magistrate Judge Gossett found Hernandez-Garcia competent to stand trial. Filing No. 33. Hernandez-Garcia did not appeal this order.
On April 14, 2004, counsel for Hernandez-Garcia moved for a reconsideration of defendant's competency. Filing No. 44. Counsel stated that on at least three occasions he had met with Hernandez-Garcia in the Pottawattamie County Jail to discuss proposed plea agreements. He reviewed the options available to Hernandez-Garcia and asked Hernandez-Garcia how he wished to proceed. According to counsel, Hernandez-Garcia responded each time that he was "too tired and confused, and didn't understand anything." Filing No. 45. Counsel asserts that Hernandez-Garcia lacks the mental capacity to assist properly in his own defense and hence is incompetent to stand trial. Magistrate Judge Gossett denied the motion to reconsider, finding that Hernandez-Garcia's mental and cognitive levels, as determined by Dr. Holton's evaluation, had not changed. Filing No. 48. This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
In reviewing a magistrate judge's order on a nondispositive matter, a district court will modify, set aside, or remand the order only if it is "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." NELR 72.3(d). Therefore, the issue here is whether a reasonable judge situated in the position of the magistrate judge would have doubted Hernandez-Garcia's competency to stand trial. Griffin v. Lockhart, 935 F.2d 926, 930 (8th Cir. 1991).
Eighth Circuit law provides that a defendant is competent to stand trial if "he has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him." United States v. Robinson, 253 F.3d 1065, 1067 (8th Cir. 2001); United States v. Long Crow, 37 F.3d 1319, 1325 (8th Cir. 2001). Dr. Holton's evaluation indicates that Hernandez Garcia has a present ability to consult with defense counsel with a reasonable degree of rational understanding. Hernandez Garcia recognized that he had an attorney and stated that he trusted his attorney "to the extent that [the attorney] is more knowledgeable about the law than he is." Eval. at 7. He stated that he had already told his attorney everything, even though Dr. Holton notes that he did not understand the concept of attorney-client confidentiality. Id. Hernandez Garcia demonstrated some comprehension of a plea agreement, stating that it was similar to a "negotiation." Id. He further indicated that he intended to plead not guilty because he had simply been doing a favor for someone, but would consider a plea agreement depending on what "time they are trying to give me." Id. He could not identify any rights he would waive by entering a plea agreement. Id.
Dr. Holton's evaluation also indicates that Hernandez Garcia possesses a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings against him. Although he could not state the actual charges against him, Hernandez Garcia could describe the behavior that formed the basis of the charges brought against him: delivery of drugs. Id. at 6. He qualified the charges against him, however, adding that he did not know he was carrying drugs to the house and that the drugs found in his home were not his and belonged to former tenants. He also acknowledged that if he were convicted he could go to prison for "ten years or more," but stated his belief that if he were found not guilty be reason of insanity, "nothing would happen, I could go home." Id. Dr. Holton noted, however, that throughout the evaluation Hernandez-Garcia was unclear about the concept of pleading not guilty by reason of insanity, "but seemed to grasp it did not apply to him because he did not have a mental illness." Id. Dr. Holton also noted that Hernandez-Garcia "expressed an interest" in pleading not guilty because he hadn't done anything. Id. Dr. Holton observed that it was apparent throughout the evaluation that Hernandez Garcia lacked motivation, and when he did not wish to participate or answer questions, he would simply respond that he did not understand. Eval. at 5.
The record thus clearly shows that Hernandez-Garcia is able to consult with a lawyer with a reasonable degree of understanding and has a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings against him. Hernandez-Garcia may lack motivation to assist counsel in his own defense, but he obviously possesses the competency and ability to do so. Magistrate Judge Gossett thus properly denied Hernandez-Garcia's motion to reconsider his competency to stand trial.
THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED:
1) Defendant Hernandez-Garcia's appeal, Filing No. 51, is dismissed; and
2) Magistrate Judge Gossett's order, Filing No. 48, is affirmed.