USCA1 Opinion

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________

No. 95-1096

UNITED STATES,

Appellee,

v.

JOSE LEBRON,

Defendant - Appellant.

____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

[Hon. Steven J. McAuliffe, U.S. District Judge]

___________________

____________________

Before

Boudin, Circuit Judge,

_____________

Coffin and Rosenn,* Senior Circuit Judges.

_____________________

_____________________

David A.F.
Lewis,
___________________

by

Appointment

of

the

Court,

for

appellant.
Jean B. Weld, Assistant
_____________
Paul M. Gagnon,
_______________
appellee.

United

United States Attorney,

States

Attorney,

was

on

with whom
brief

for

____________________

February 14, 1996

____________________

____________________

Of the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.

ROSENN, Circuit Judge.

ROSENN, Circuit Judge.
_____________

This appeal from a guilty

plea

and

sentence

defendant

requires

whose

that

behavior

we

may

consider

the

raise questions

process

due

concerning

his

mental competency.

I.
I.

A federal

indicted

robberies

Jos

grand jury for the District of New Hampshire

Lebr n on ten

counts stemming from

his two armed

of a pawnshop and a bank in Manchester, New Hampshire.

His co-defendants,

Paul Hazen

and Frank

Jones, pled

guilty to

possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C.

The

court imposed sentence and neither of them appealed.

requested

3006A.

counsel

under the

However, he

Criminal

Justice

Act, 18

922(g).

Lebr n

U.S.C.

vehemently objected to his court-appointed

counsel and filed several motions

with the court requesting

new

counsel.

A magistrate

Lebr n had

informed

judge denied

not articulated

Lebr n

that

he

the

motion, finding

sufficient reasons.

could

either

retain

that

The magistrate

his

appointed

counsel, or proceed pro se.

___ __

At

a hearing

appointed counsel,

substitute

proceed

counsel.

on

Lebr n's

motion

the district court

The

pro se and that

___ __

for a

new

found no valid

court informed

Lebr n that

court-

reason to

he could

his court-appointed counsel would stand

by, and take over the case if Lebr n did not conform to courtroom

rules.

Lebr n

lost his

marshals to handcuff

denied his

motion

temper, and his

him before

the hearing ended.

for reconsideration.

-2-

behavior prompted

Lebr n then

The

the

court

filed

Renewed Motion for Reappointment of Counsel, in which he asserted

that there was medication

he could take which could

"affect his

ability to be aware of exactly what is happening around him."

On May 10, 1994, Lebr n represented himself during jury

selection.

interpreter,

Several

Although he

Lebr n

was

initially asked for, and was

able

of his objections to

to communicate

jury members were

with

denied, an

the

jury.

granted.

After

jury

selection, the court held

and his counsel to

an ex parte

enable them to air the

session with Lebr n

disagreements between

them without compromising the attorney-client privilege.

At this

session, the judge informed Lebr n that he had done a good job in

jury

selection, but

himself

ought

that

in the sense he's

to be raised

district

court

he was

not aware of

on his

meant

"not

behalf."

this

competent to

fundamental issues that

Lebr n concedes

statement

represent

to

refer

to

that the

Lebr n's

competence as an attorney, not to Lebr n's mental competence.

the

that

same ex parte

Lebr n

antipsychotic)

session, Lebr n's counsel

used to

and

receive

trazodone

prescriptions

(an

At

informed the court

for thorazine

antidepressant)

from

(an

the

Veteran's Administration hospital, and that he would like to take

these drugs during the trial.

In

response, the

judge

alerted

Lebr n had a previous psychiatric history.

might

be relevant

to the

the Government

He believed that this

defendant's ability

waive his right to counsel.

The court then held

that day

issue

to

determine the

that

of Lebr n's

to intelligently

a hearing later

competency,

and

-3-

whether Lebr n should

be permitted to

take his requested

drugs

during trial.

the

The

court took testimony from Dr.

prison psychiatrist.

Sidley stated

Nathan Sidley,

that

he had

briefly

reviewed Lebr n's Veteran's Administration medical records, which

revealed

a possible

diagnosis

Sidley had attempted to

first five minutes, upon

discussion would

that, based on

not be

these facts,

competent to stand trial.

benefits from the

detriments

of

confidential.

Lebr n was not

him

1970s.

terminated

learning that

Sidley concluded

psychotic, and

was

He further concluded that any possible

drugs Lebr n requested were

giving

in the

meet with Lebr n, but Lebr n

their meeting within the

their

of schizophrenia

massive

quantities

outweighed by the

needed

without

sufficient time for the drugs to build up in his bloodstream.

Lebr n

then testified

that

he was

using heroin

and

Valium, and

Two

that he had

both drugs in

days later, the district

his system at

court judge issued

the time.

an order which

continued the trial date, permitted Lebr n's counsel to withdraw,

and appointed Paul Twomey as new counsel for Lebr n.

The next day, the Government and Twomey jointly filed a

request

4241,

for a

which

psychiatric evaluation

the court

Albert Druktenis

with

should perform

Lebr n and evaluated him

determine

his

granted.

to stand

pursuant to the

the time of

trial now.

18 U.S.C.

parties agreed

the evaluation.

both Lebr n's sanity at

competency

The

pursuant to

Druktenis

that Dr.

Druktenis met

court's order to

the offense, and

concluded that

Lebr n was not insane at the time of the offense, and that he was

-4-

competent to stand trial.

He noted that Lebr n's personality was

manipulative, but that he

was aware of the charges

and

at

had been able to speak

court

Lebr n's

cloud

his

hearings.

intelligently, lucidly and logically

Druktenis

current medications, and

thinking in

against him,

also

addressed

noted

any substantial

the

that they

way

issue

of

"would not

and, in

fact, are

probably helping him by reducing anxiety and agitation."

After

the psychiatrist

submitted this

report, Lebr n

withdrew his

motion to

parties reached

dismiss based

a plea agreement.

on incompetency,

Under

and the

this agreement, Lebr n

would plead guilty to two counts of use and carrying of a firearm

in

violation of

18 U.S.C.

924(c),

and the

Government would

dismiss the remaining eight counts.

The

October 3,

hearing,

court

1994.

Lebr n

conducted

change

threw

proceeded, with

the

there was "no issue at this

competence."

Defense

plea

hearing

on

Before the judge entered the courtroom for the

pitcher

investigators, narrowly missing one

hearing

of

Both

counsel

of

water

agent.

at

the

case

Soon thereafter, the

court stating

that it

understood

point with regard to the defendant's

agreed that

counsel then added that

Lebr n was

he had come

competent.

to that conclusion

himself

The

independently

after reviewing

court then asked Lebr n

evidence to the

that he

could

questioning,

charges was

not remember

he admitted to

the

psychiatric report.

if the Government's

correct.

any

of

At

first Lebr n

the events.

the conduct.

proffer of the

On

claimed

further

After fully advising

-5-

Lebr n of the rights he would waive by pleading guilty, the court

accepted the plea.

The

months

on one

court

sentenced Lebr n

count and 60

to

months on

imprisonment

the other,

for 240

to be served

consecutively, three years supervised release with a condition of

treatment for his chemical dependency, $500 in restitution, and a

$100 special assessment.

issue

Lebr n

appeals, raising

whether the district court

holding

hearing

under 18

denied him due

U.S.C.

competency when he changed his plea.

4241

as his

sole

process by not

to determine

his

We affirm.

II.
II.

The

conviction of

legally incompetent violates

U.S.

375, 378

(1965).

The

criminal defendant

due process.

test

for

while he

is

Pate v. Robinson, 383

____
________

defendant's

mental

competency to plead guilty

competence to stand

is the same as that

trial.

515, 517 (6th Cir. 1973).

Court,

is

whether

against him and

his lawyer

the

United States v.
_____________

Harlan, 480
______

F.2d

That test, as set forth by the Supreme

defendant

understands the

has sufficient present

with a

of a defendant's

reasonable degree of

proceedings

ability to consult

with

rational understanding.

Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960).

_____
_____________

To

established

United States

criminal

assist courts

in

making this

certain procedures.

test, Congress

has

Section 4241 of Title 18 of the

Code provides the relevant reference in matters of

defendant's

competency

provides in pertinent part:

-6-

to stand

trial.

4241(a)

...[T]he

defendant

or the

the Government

may file a

hearing

determine

to

competency of the
shall

grant the

such

hearing

attorney for
motion for
the

defendant.
motion, or
on its

own

mental

The

court

shall order
motion, if

there is reasonable cause to believe that

the defendant may presently

be suffering

from a mental disease or defect rendering

him

mentally

that
nature

he

is
and

proceedings

incompetent to
unable

to

understand

consequences
against

him

properly in his defense.

the extent

or

of
to

the
the

assist

In

the

present case,

no such

hearing

was held

Lebr n, however,

asserts that the district

cause to believe

that he,

disease

due

or defect.

or requested.

court had reasonable

Lebr n, was suffering

from a

mental

Therefore, he claims, the court violated his

process rights by not

ordering a competency

hearing on its

own motion.

By the language of the statute, a district court

has

duty to

order

competency hearing

only

judge

if there

"reasonable cause" to doubt the defendant's mental competence.

district

after

court's findings

holding

such a

clearly erroneous.

(7th

Cir.

1991).

about the

hearing will

competency of

a defendant

upheld unless

they are

United States v. Collins, 949 F.2d

______________
_______

921, 927

When

there

has

be

is

been

no hearing,

and

no

examination of

the

defendant whatsoever,

the

appellate

reviews the district court's findings comprehensively.

Id.
__

court

This

case falls in between these two standards.

Although

hearing, he

the

the

trial

judge

did

not

order

carefully and painstakingly sought,

defendant's

initial

appearance before

-7-

him,

formal

commencing with

to

ascertain

whether

there was

protect

Lebr n's due

discharged the

any

it

the

of

mental competency

process rights.

jury, continued the

defendant be examined

before

question

by a

To

trial and

psychiatrist.

psychiatrist's

this end,

report,

the court

well

as

to

the judge

ordered that

Thus,

as

and

the

had

Lebr n's

Veteran's Administration medical records and the testimony of the

prison psychiatrist.

concluded

plea.

In addition, defendant's

that Lebr n was

counsel also had

mentally competent to

enter a guilty

Because the judge had substantial facts before him when he

made findings

as to

defendant's

competency, we

will give

his

decision not to hold a competency hearing due deference.

Dr.

Druktenis, after

with Lebr n, concluded

conducting a

two-hour interview

that Lebr n was competent to stand trial.

If a psychiatrist has determined that a defendant is competent, a

court

is not

required

to hold

absent extenuating circumstances.

553 F.2d

1082, 1086 (7th

district

court's discretion to

further evidentiary

hearing

See United States v. Prewitt,

___ _____________
_______

Cir. 1977).

It was

well within

the

conclude that such circumstances

were not present here.

Lebr n points to his irrational and outrageous behavior

in the courtroom.

He claims that this

should have alerted the

district court judge that Lebr n was incompetent to enter a plea.

Lebr n had been

hearing,

he had

stating, "I

the

handcuffed at the April hearing.

pleaded

to

be

have too much trouble

removed

from

Also, at this

the

on my mind, your

courtroom,

Honor."

At

change of plea hearing, Lebr n threw a pitcher full of water

-8-

at

case

investigators.

manipulative, or

competency.

Such behavior

even theatrical.

be

is not

uncontrolled,

determinative of

courtroom antics alone

do not

mandate a finding by the trial court of reasonable cause.

United
______

States
______

Agitated or violent

It

may

v. Marshall,
________

458

Marshall, the defendant

________

F.2d

446, 450

(2d

Cir.

behaved belligerently in

1972).

In

the courtroom,

shouted obscenities, and threw not only a water pitcher, but also

chair in

the courtroom.

Two psychiatric

reports, however,

disclosed that the defendant was competent, and predicted that he

would engage in disruptive

behavior.

The Court of

Appeals held

that the trial court was within its discretion in failing to hold

a competency hearing.

Similarly here, two psychiatrists examined

Lebr n and found him competent.1

Lebr n

further argues

history of taking medications

reasonable cause.

that

(1st

Cir.

However, past

records were from

1992).

the 1970s,

medical

record

and

should have provided the necessary

treatment or drug

determinative of present competency.

F.2d

his

Lebr n's

use is

not

United States v. Pryor, 960

_____________
_____

Veteran's

twenty years ago.

Administration

Moreover,

Dr.

Druktenis expressly addressed the issue of the medications Lebr n

____________________

Lebr n argues

that Dr. Sidley's opinion should

because their meeting was inadequate.

little
medical

contact with
records

was

Lebr n,

testimony alone would not

It is true that Sidley had

and that

cursory.

We

be discounted

his
agree

review of

Lebr n's

that

Sidley's

Dr.

have sufficient indicia of reliability

to obviate the need for further findings.

However, Dr. Druktenis

conducted an extended face-to-face examination of Lebr n.

-9-

was

currently taking

and noted

that they

would not

cloud his

summary,

although

Lebr n

occasionally

and has

a medical

history showing

thinking.

In

belligerently

mental

illness

counterbalanced

and

by

past

drug

use,

Dr. Druktenis'

competence, his counsel's assertion

enter the

plea,

and the

trial

these

report

behaved

past possible

are

more

of Lebr n's

than

present

that Lebr n was competent to

court's careful

plea

colloquy

ensuring that Lebr n understood the

charges against him, and the

consequences

them.

pointed

There

hearing

of pleading guilty to

unequivocally

was no

when

to

the

reasonable cause

all the

All

defendant's

for

information

mental

the trial

from

of these factors

competency.

court to

hold a

the psychiatrist,

the

defense

counsel, and the judge

id. United States v.

___ _____________

himself were in

Pryor, 960 F.2d 1, 2

_____

agreement.

See
___

(1st Cir. 1992)(where

district court had an opportunity to observe defendant rationally

and

vigorously

participating

in

his

defense

at

pretrial

proceeding, and psychiatrist found that defendant was oriented as

to time and place,

there was no

further hearing, under

cause for the

section 4241 despite

court to hold

defendant's history

of drug problems and psychiatric treatment).

As this

States,
______

court noted

904 F.2d 758

provides reasonable

in Hern ndez-Hern ndez

___________________

(1st Cir. 1990),

cause for

a hearing

a ruling that

would

v. United
______

this case

"come close

to

requiring district courts to order competency hearings sua sponte

in every case where

a defendant has some history

of psychiatric

-10-

treatment

(quoting

and, even vaguely, mentions the problem."

Figueroa-V zquez v.
________________

(1st Cir. 1983).

United States,
_____________

Id., at 760
___

718 F.2d

511, 612

We decline to impose such a heavy, unnecessary,

and costly burden on district courts.

III.
III.

We hold

defendant

that when a qualified

before he enters a

psychiatrist examines a

plea to criminal

charges, and the

psychiatric report and other pertinent current information reveal

that

the

defendant

reversible

conduct

4241(a).

affirmed.
affirmed
________

error for

a formal

is competent

to

district court

hearing under

stand

trial,

it is

not

to

fail or

refuse

to

the provisions

of 18

U.S.C.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence is

-11-