Furthermore, when the issue of the defendant's competency to stand trial is raised in a ยง 2255 motion, the burden is upon the defendant to prove that he was not mentally competent to stand trial. Crail v. United States, 10 Cir., 1970, 430 F.2d 459, 460; and see Mealer v. United States, 9 Cir., 1967, 383 F.2d 849, 850. In sum, the issues and standards of proof here are different from those in Cooper, et al.
The record shows that appellant failed to carry the burden of establishing mental incompetence. Mealer v. United States, 383 F.2d 849 (9th Cir. 1967). Affirmed.
"The burden [i]s on [the defendant] to establish that he was mentally incompetent at the time of his plea and sentence." Mealer v. United States, 383 F.2d 849, 850 (9th Cir. 1967). Here, defendant Galvan has offered no argument, analysis, or evidence in support of her assertion that she was not competent at either the time of her entry of her guilty plea and/or at the time of her sentencing.
The burden of establishing mental incompetence rests with the petitioner. Boag v. Raines, 769 F.2d 1341, 1343-44 (9th Cir. 1985); Lee v. United States, 468 F.2d 906, 907 (9th Cir. 1972); Mealer v. United States, 383 F.2d 849, 849 (9th Cir. 1967). The test of competency for pleading guilty is the same as the competency standard for standing trial; that is, "whether the defendant has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding" and has "a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him."
It is undisputed that the burden of proof in this proceeding is upon the movant. Papalia v. United States, 333 F.2d 620, 621 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 838, 85 S.Ct. 74, 13 L.Ed.2d 45 (1964); Mealer v. United States, 383 F.2d 849, 859 (9th Cir. 1967); Cruz v. United States, 368 F.2d 783, 784 (4th Cir. 1966). There is no need, however, to dwell upon this. If the prosecution bore a heavy burden of proving competence, it would be sustained on the record now before the court.