Opinion
CASE NO.: 2:19-cr-8
10-21-2019
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. WARREN SINEPHA, Defendant.
ORDER AND MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Warren Sinepha's Motion to Determine Mental Competency of Defendant. Doc. 35. The Court held a hearing on this matter on May 22, 2019 and granted the request for a competency evaluation. Doc. 38. After this hearing, Dr. Carmen J. Rodriguez, Psy.D, Forensic Psychologist, a forensic psychologist with the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"), conducted a psychiatric evaluation of Mr. Sinepha and authored a report ("Forensic Evaluation") summarizing her findings. Doc. 46. Counsel for the Government and for Mr. Sinepha reviewed and considered Dr. Rodriguez's report. The Court held a competency hearing on the matter on October 4, 2019. Based on the entire record in this case, including the Forensic Report, I find Mr. Sinepha is capable of understanding the charges against him and meaningfully consulting with his attorney about his defense. Therefore, I RECOMMEND the Court find that Mr. Sinepha is competent to stand trial and proceed with this case.
BACKGROUND
I. Procedural Background
The United States charges Mr. Sinepha with one count of bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) by way of indictment. Doc. 1. Mr. Sinepha appeared for his initial appearance and arraignment on February 21, 2019. Attorney Alan Tucker was appointed to represent Defendant Warren Sinepha on February 11, 2019. On March 22, 2019, Mr. Tucker filed a Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Doc. 25. The Court held an Attorney Inquiry Hearing on April 15, 2019. After hearing from Mr. Tucker and Mr. Sinepha, the Court granted Mr. Tucker's motion and Attorney Scott G. Reddock was appointed as replacement counsel for Mr. Sinepha on April 17, 2019. Doc. 30. On May 10, 2019, Mr. Reddock filed a Motion for Psychiatric Exam of Defendant Warren Sinepha. Doc. 35. The Court granted the Motion for Psychiatric Exam, and ordered Mr. Sinepha transferred to a BOP facility to be evaluated to determine whether he is competent to stand trial. Doc. 38. The Court issued an Order based on 18 U.S.C. § 4241(b) ordering that Mr. Sinepha be evaluated by a psychiatrist or psychologist in accordance with 18 U.S.C. §§ 4247(b) and (c). Id. The BOP completed its evaluation and the Court received Dr. Rodriguez's Forensic Report on August 20, 2019. Doc. 46.
On August 23, 2019, Mr. Reddock filed a Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Doc. 49. The Court held an Attorney Inquiry Hearing on August 30, 2019. After hearing from Mr. Reddock and Mr. Sinepha, the Court granted Mr. Reddock's motion and Attorney Amy Lee Copeland was appointed as replacement counsel for Mr. Sinepha on September 9, 2019. Doc. 51. Ms. Copeland remains Defendant's appointed counsel.
On September 13, 2019, the parties filed a joint status report, informing the Court that Mr. Sinepha did not consent or stipulate to the findings or conclusions in the Forensic Report, and that Mr. Sinepha requested a hearing on his competency. The Court conducted a competency hearing on October 4, 2019. Dr. Rodriguez testified via Video Teleconference ("VTC").
II. The Forensic Report
In accordance with the Court's Order, Dr. Rodriguez conducted a psychiatric evaluation of Mr. Sinepha at the Federal Detention Center in Miami, Florida from July 9, 2019 to July 29, 2019 and provided her Forensic Report to the Court. Doc. 46. Dr. Rodriguez explained in the Forensic Report that Mr. Sinepha reported an emotionally difficult childhood, involving instances of violence and trauma and that, in recent years, Mr. Sinepha has not had a stable residence, and has experienced multiple brief periods of homelessness. Mr. Sinepha also reported a history of conflicts and disagreements with co-workers. Mr. Sinepha reported having been committed to psychiatric hospitalization at least once, then with suicidal thoughts. Mr. Sinepha also reported having nightmares related to the death of a friend, which have decreased over time, and a history of paranoid tendencies and difficulties trusting others. Mr. Sinepha was placed on suicide watch when he arrived at the Federal Detention Center in Miami, Florida, though Mr. Sinepha later explained that this was because he expressed concern about his safety from attacks by other inmates. Mr. Sinepha reported that his mother had an unknown mental illness, but he was unaware of any psychiatric hospitalizations or suicide attempts in the family.
In the Forensic Report, Dr. Rodriguez goes on to describe her evaluation, including the tests and procedures she performed. The Forensic Report explains that Mr. Sinepha was provisionally diagnosed with "Unspecified Schizophrenia And Other Psychotic Disorder" by Dr. Rodolfo Buigas upon Mr. Sinepha's arrival at the detention center in Miami. However, the Forensic Report explains that Mr. Sinepha was seen by various other doctors during his time at the Miami facility, and that he generally presented as stable during that time and did not require or receive any mental health services or psychiatric treatment. In terms of his cognitive functioning, the Forensic Report explains that the evaluators subjected Mr. Sinepha to various tests, and determined that his intellectual functioning fell in the "Low Average" range. Based on indications that Mr. Sinepha was motivated to perform well on these tests, Dr. Rodriguez concluded that the test results should be considered valid. Regarding Mr. Sinepha's psychological and personality functioning, Dr. Rodriguez performed various tests and determined that Mr. Sinepha demonstrated a mistrust of others and viewed himself as socially isolated. Although Mr. Sinepha gave some inconsistent and defensive answers to the psychological and personality testing, Dr. Rodriguez determined that Mr. Sinepha was not exaggerating or fabricating his symptoms (i.e., he was not malingering).
Aside from this brief reference in the Forensic Report, no evidence was submitted regarding Dr. Buigas's provisional diagnosis.
Ultimately, Dr. Rodriguez diagnosed Mr. Sinepha with Unspecified Depressive Disorder and Unspecified Trauma and Stressor-Related Disorder. Dr. Rodriguez concluded that Mr. Sinepha's behaviors are of a "long-standing, characterological nature," and suggest the presence of a personality disorder with paranoid traits, but not to the extent sometimes present in psychotic disorders. Consequently, Mr. Sinepha may also be suffering from an "Other Specified Personality Disorder with Paranoid Features." Despite these diagnoses, Dr. Rodriguez concluded that Mr. Sinepha's prognosis is favorable and his current mental status is relatively stable. Mr. Sinepha has an adequate factional and rational understanding of courtroom roles and proceedings, as well as an understanding of the nature of the proceedings, his potential sentence if convicted, and status of plea negotiations. Mr. Sinepha also understands the role of counsel in this case and the disagreements he has had with prior counsel, and expressed his intent to work with his attorney in presenting his position to the Court. Dr. Rodriguez observed that Mr. Sinepha "presents with certain characterological patterns of behavior and thinking that are inflexible and pervasive, but that are not believed to be due to a mental illness." Dr. Rodriguez stated "[Mr. Sinepha] demonstrated no symptoms of an active mental illness that would interfere with his rational understanding of the proceedings or his ability to assist toward his defense. His behavior appeared purposeful and hide his volitional control." Therefore, based on her evaluation, Dr. Rodriquez opined that Mr. Sinepha is competent in that he is able to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him and to properly assist in his defense. Dr. Rodriguez is of the opinion, as stated in the Forensic Report, that Mr. Sinepha does not suffer from a major mental illness, is able to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him, and can properly assist in his defense.
III. Competency Hearing
During the October 4, 2019 hearing, the Government called Dr. Rodriguez as a witness. Dr. Rodriguez testified by VTC. Dr. Rodriguez testified about her qualifications and credentials and the Government tendered her as expert in her field. Mr. Sinepha's counsel cross-examined Dr. Rodriguez about her background, and, ultimately, did not oppose Dr. Rodriguez being offered as an expert. The Court accepted Dr. Rodriguez as an expert in her field.
During direct examination, cross-examination, and questioning from the Court, Dr. Rodriguez testified about her evaluation, her report, and her conclusions. Dr. Rodriguez explained that she conducted several different tests and procedures to assess Mr. Sinepha's mental state. Dr. Rodriguez testified in detail about the tests she employed, the purposes of the tests, and the results of the tests. Dr. Rodrigues also testified about her personal interactions with Mr. Sinepha and interactions he had with other BOP employees. Dr. Rodriguez described Mr. Sinepha as cooperative during the evaluation. Dr. Rodriguez explained that some of the tests she performed initially yielded results that could indicate malingering, but that she employed additional tests that ruled out the possibility of malingering. Similarly, Dr. Rodriguez observed that Mr. Sinepha exhibited some bizarre psychiatric symptoms, but further tests confirmed that Mr. Sinepha was not, in fact, malingering. Dr. Rodriguez explained that Mr. Sinepha exhibited signs of depression, anxiety, and paranoid traits, but that these traits were characterological patterns of behavior, and did not indicate any major mental illness. Additionally, Dr. Rodriguez opined that while Mr. Sinepha is generally mistrustful of others, his mistrustful nature and paranoid tendencies did not render Mr. Sinepha incompetent such that he could not properly assist with his defense in this case. Dr. Rodriguez testified at length about Mr. Sinepha's understanding of the nature and circumstances of these proceedings, the roles of the individuals he would encounter during the proceedings, the potential consequences of the charges against him, and his rights in the case. No other witnesses appeared at the competency hearing and no other evidence, aside from Mr. Sinepha's previous requests to obtain new counsel, was submitted at the hearing.
At the hearing, Mr. Sinepha directed his counsel to question Dr. Rodriguez about an interaction Mr. Sinepha had while in transit from Miami, Florida back to Georgia, where—Mr. Sinepha claims—a BOP nurse referred to a document indicating that Mr. Sinepha had been diagnosed with "schizophrenia." Dr. Rodriguez explained that her evaluation and testing did not support Dr. Buigas's provisional diagnosis, and that she was unaware of Mr. Sinepha ever being formally diagnosed with "schizophrenia." Dr. Rodriguez had no knowledge of any document containing such a diagnosis and could not offer any explanation for the interchange Mr. Sinepha reported. Mr. Sinepha directed his counsel to end this line of questioning and the issue was not pursued further. --------
The Government adopted and agreed with all of Dr. Rodriguez's conclusions and argued that the Court should find Mr. Sinepha competent to stand trial. Mr. Sinepha's counsel argued that the presence or absence of a major mental illness is not determinative as to whether an individual is competent to stand trial, but instead the inquiry focuses on the individual's ability to properly assist with his defense in the case. Counsel for Mr. Sinepha argued that Mr. Sinepha's pronounced mistrust of others and paranoid tendencies renders Mr. Sinepha largely, if not completely, incapable of properly assisting with his defense in this case. At the conclusion of the competency hearing, the undersigned took the matter under advisement and now issues this Report and Recommendation.
DISCUSSION
"[C]ompetence is the base upon which other constitutional rights balance[.]" United States v. Wingo, 789 F.3d 1226, 1228 (11th Cir. 2015); see also Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348, 354(1996) (The United States Supreme Court has "repeatedly and consistently recognized that the criminal trial of an incompetent defendant violates due process.") (internal quotation and citation omitted); Eddmonds v. Peters, 93 F.3d 1307, 1314 (7th Cir. 1996) ("The Constitution forbids trial of one who, for whatever reason, is unfit to assist in his own defense because our adversarial system of justice depends on vigorous defenses.").
Incompetency means "suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering [the defendant] 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." 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a). A defendant is not entitled to a presumption of incompetency, and he assumes the burden of proof to establish his incompetency by a preponderance of the evidence. Cooper, 517 U.S. at 355; Battle v. United States, 419 F.3d 1292, 1298 (11th Cir. 2005). The legal test for competency 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.'" Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 396 (1993) (quoting Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960)); see also United States v. Cruz, 805 F.2d 1464, 1479 (11th Cir. 1986).
At the competency hearing, Mr. Sinepha's counsel argued that Mr. Sinepha's paranoid tendencies and his mistrust of others interfere with his ability to consult with his counsel and assist in the defense of the case to such a degree that he is incompetent to stand trial. Mr. Sinepha's counsel pointed to her own difficulties interacting with Mr. Sinepha and the difficulties previous counsel had interacting with Mr. Sinepha. Mr. Sinepha's counsel argued Dr. Rodriguez's conclusions were based on the incorrect assumption that because Mr. Sinepha does not have a major mental illness, he must be competent to stand trial. In support of this argument, Mr. Sinepha's counsel emphasized that whether an individual has a diagnosable mental illness is not determinative as to the issue of competency. See United States v. Williams, No. 5:06-cr-36, 2007 WL 1655371, at *5 (M.D. Fla. June 7, 2007) ("a defendant can be competent to stand trial despite being mentally ill and similarly a defendant can be found incompetent to stand trial without being mentally ill. Incompetency to stand trial is not defined in terms of mental illness." (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)). Indeed, it is correct that "not every manifestation of mental illness demonstrates incompetence to stand trial; rather, the evidence must indicate a present inability to assist counsel or understand the charges." Medina v. Singletary, 59 F.3d 1095, 1107 (11th Cir. 1995).
In this case, however, Mr. Sinepha has not established by a preponderance of evidence that he is incompetent to stand trial. After an extensive evaluation, Dr. Rodriguez determined that Mr. Sinepha is able to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him and to assist properly in his defense. Doc. 46. Dr. Rodriguez testified knowledgeably and credibly about her evaluation at the competency hearing. Dr. Rodriguez explained that she considered and assessed Mr. Sinepha's characterological traits, including his paranoid tendencies and mistrust of others, and determined that those traits do not render him incompetent to stand trial. Even considering those traits, Dr. Rodriguez opined that Mr. Sinepha can properly assist in his defense in this case, if he chooses to do so. And although Mr. Sinepha demonstrated intellectual functioning in the "Low Average" range, he plainly understands the nature and circumstances of these proceedings, and the potential consequences. Dr. Rodriguez acknowledged certain inconsistent and defensive answers from Mr. Sinepha during the course of the evaluation, but explained the tests and procedures that were utilized to address those answers. Additionally, Dr. Rodriguez acknowledged, considered, and evaluated Mr. Sinepha for the possibility that he was malingering (and, thus, skewing the test results) and determined that Mr. Sinepha was not malingering.
No evidence was presented, and no witnesses were called, to contradict Dr. Rodriguez's findings and conclusions. Moreover, Dr. Rodriguez's conclusions are consistent with the undersigned's observations of Mr. Sinepha. Mr. Sinepha has appeared in court multiple times in this action, on three occasions related substitutions of counsel. Docs. 18, 27, 37, 50. In each instance, Mr. Sinepha communicated his general mistrust of others and some degree of paranoia, but did so in a clear and cogent manner. Mr. Sinepha demonstrated that he understands the nature and circumstances of these proceedings, the role of his counsel, the role of the prosecutor, and status of the case. On each occasion, Mr. Sinepha was engaged and attentive and did not make any unusual or inappropriate outbursts.
It is true, that Dr. Rodriguez concluded that Mr. Sinepha does not suffer from a "major mental illness," but Dr. Rodriguez did not base her competency recommendation solely, or even primarily, on the fact that Mr. Sinepha does not have a major mental illness. Rather, Dr. Rodriguez conducted an extensive and comprehensive evaluation of Mr. Sinepha, assessing his various characterological traits and whether Mr. Sinepha can understand these proceedings and assist his counsel. Dr. Rodriguez did not conclude Mr. Sinepha is competent because he does not have a major mental illness; Dr. Rodriguez concluded Mr. Sinepha is competent because she fully evaluated Mr. Sinepha's competency under appropriate standards and found him to be competent.
At the competency hearing, Mr. Sinepha's counsel cited to United States v. Porter, 907 F.3d 374 (5th Cir. 2018). In Porter, the defendant exhibited symptoms that suggested he might be suffering from a mental handicap, including unusual rapid speech (referred to as "pressured speech"), fixation on certain particular aspects of his case (referred to as "perseveration"), refusal to cooperate with his lawyers, and paranoid beliefs that his lawyers were conspiring against him. The district court, however, determined that the defendant was intentionally producing the symptoms for secondary gain (i.e., malingering), and the Fifth Circuit affirmed that decision. In doing so, the appellate court emphasized that the defendant's refusal to cooperate with his lawyers was real, but it was by choice and not the result of mental defect. Mr. Sinepha's counsel argues that Mr. Sinepha's refusal to cooperate with his attorneys is similar to the defendant's in Porter, but that in Mr. Sinepha's case it is the product of his characterological traits, including his paranoid tendencies and mistrust of others, which are beyond his control. In other words, Mr. Sinepha's counsel argues Mr. Sinepha does not cooperate with his counsel because he is incapable of doing so, not because of a volitional choice.
Mr. Sinepha's refusal to cooperate with his attorneys may indeed be related to his paranoid tendencies and mistrust of others, but even assuming that to be true, Mr. Sinepha has not met his burden to show he is incompetent to stand trial. Indeed, in Porter, the court noted that distrust of counsel—even where the distrust is deeply rooted and long standing—does not make one mentally unable to consult with counsel to assist with the defense of the case. Id. (citing United States v. Ghane, 593 F.3d 775, 781 (8th Cir. 2010)("disagreement with one's attorney does not make one mentally unable to consult")). Rather, Mr. Sinepha must show that is incapable of properly assisting in his defense, and he has not done so here. At most, Mr. Sinepha has demonstrated that his characterological traits may interfere with his ability to consult with his lawyers, or make that relationship generally more difficult, but he has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that these traits are so overwhelming that that he is wholly unable to consult with his counsel. The undersigned is sympathetic to the distressing events that may have caused Mr. Sinepha's characterological traits as well as the difficulties that his attorneys have faced in representing him, but the evidence before the Court does not demonstrate Mr. Sinepha is incapable of assisting with the defense of this case.
While the undersigned had reasonable cause to believe Mr. Sinepha may have suffered from a mental disease or defect at the time I ordered Mr. Sinepha's competency evaluation, Dr. Rodriguez's thorough evaluation and the lack of any contradictory evidence have removed any concerns or doubt about Mr. Sinepha's competency. The undersigned agrees with Dr. Rodriguez's conclusion that Mr. Sinepha is able to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him and to assist properly in his defense. Mr. Sinepha exhibits some characterological traits that may make the attorney-client relationship more difficult, but he is capable in assisting with his defense if he elects to do so. I, therefore, RECOMMEND the Court find that Mr. Sinepha is competent to stand trial.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, I RECOMMEND the Court find Mr. Sinepha competent to stand trial and proceed with this case.
The Court ORDERS any party seeking to object to this Report and Recommendation to file specific written objections within 14 days of the date on which this Report and Recommendation is entered. Any objections asserting that the Magistrate Judge failed to address any contention raised in the Complaint must also be included. Failure to do so will bar any later challenge or review of the factual findings or legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). A copy of the objections must be served upon all other parties to the action. The filing of objections is not a proper vehicle through which to make new allegations or present additional evidence.
Upon receipt of Objections meeting the specificity requirement set out above, a United States District Judge will make a de novo determination of those portions of the report, proposed findings, or recommendation to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. Objections not meeting the specificity requirement set out above will not be considered by a District Judge. A party may not appeal a Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Appeals may be made only from a final judgment entered by or at the direction of a District Judge. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to serve a copy of this Report and Recommendation upon the parties.
SO ORDERED and REPORTED and RECOMMENDED, this 21st day of October, 2019.
/s/_________
BENJAMIN W. CHEESBRO
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA