Opinion
8:22-cr-00155-MSS-SPF
12-27-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ALEXANDER LESZCZYNSKI
ORDER
SEAN P. FLYNN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before the Court is Defendant's Renewed Motion to Have Defendant Evaluated for Mental Competency and Determination to Stand Trial and/or Plea (“Renewed Motion”) (Doc. 64). While filed at the request of his client, Counsel for Defendant Alexander Leszczynski represents that he “does not believe this Renewed Motion is in ‘Good Faith' as counsel's interactions and discussions with the Defendant including discussion of his discovery, plea agreements and participation in his plea [colloquy] indicate he is not suffering from any mental incapacity and/or inability to comprehend his charges.” (Id.). The Court agrees with counsel.
On October 14, 2022, the Court appointed Dr. Valerie R. McClain, Psy.D. to conduct an independent psychiatric examination of Defendant. On October 26, 2022, Dr. McClain performed a forensic psychological evaluation of Defendant, and subsequently provided the Court with a report of her observations and opinion that Defendant is competent to stand trial. (Doc. S-50).
Thereafter, the Court conducted a competency hearing on November 2, 2022 (Doc. 55). At the hearing, the parties stipulatedthat Dr. McClain's report would serve as the evidence of Defendant's competency (Id.). Based on Dr. McClain's report and Court's own observations, and in the absence of any contrary evidence, the Court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant was not presently suffering from a mental disease or defect that rendered him unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or to properly assist in his defense (Id.). As a result, the Court found Defendant competent to stand trial (Id.).
At the hearing, Defendant confirmed that he read the report, reviewed it with his attorney, and agreed with Dr. McClain's findings.
On November 21, 2022, Defendant appeared before the Court and pleaded guilty to Counts ONE, THREE and FOUR of the Indictment (Doc. 62). At the hearing, the Court again found Defendant competent to proceed. During the Rule 11 colloquy, Defendant demonstrated that he understood his rights, the rights he would be giving up by pleading guilty, the charges against him, the potential penalties, the potential consequences, the sentencing guidelines, and his plea agreement.
On December 27, 2022, the Court held a hearing on the pending Renewed Motion. Defendant testified that has received treatment for a MRSA infection in his face since October 2022. According to Defendant, he is now unable to remember: his attorney's name (with whom Defendant was speaking prior to, and during, the hearing), being examined by Dr. McClain, appearing before the undersigned, the charges against him, and the name of the presiding district judge. Defendant further represents that he no longer understands the proceedings against him.
The Court does not find Defendant's testimony credible. Rather it is clear that Defendant is fabricating his selective amnesia and cogitative defects. None of the alleged symptoms have been observed by his counsel. The Court also notes that on April 11, 2002, Defendant's clinical psychologist, Dr. Scot D. Machlus, Ph.D., was “unable to render an opinion citing a very high probability that Mr. Leszcynski was fabricating or exaggerating deficits in his intellectual and achievement abilities, and being disingenuous when discussing background information. Due to the compelling evidence that Mr. Leszcynski was feigning/malingering, an opinion regarding mitigation could not be provided at that time.” (Doc. 64).
Based on counsel's representations and the Court's own observations, the Court finds there are no reasonable grounds to believe Defendant Alexander Leszczynski may presently suffer from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to proceed to trial. Accordingly, Defendant's Renewed Motion (Doc. 64) is DENIED.
Defendant's Renewed Motion to Have Defendant Evaluated for Mental Competency and Determination to Stand Trial and/or Plea (Doc. 36) has been denied in Defendant's other criminal case pending in this district, Case No. 8:22-cr-371-JSM-AAS (Doc. 37).