United States v. Sjarieff McGhee

MEMORANDUM

Sjarieff McGhee appeals his conviction for bank fraud and other crimes on two grounds: (1) the district court committed clear error in finding him competent to stand trial, and (2) the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a third competency evaluation. We affirm.

The district court made a finding of fact that McGhee was competent to stand trial based on two expert reports, one prepared by a clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of Southern California, Dr. Kaushal Sharma, and the other prepared by a forensic psychologist with the Bureau of Prisons, Dr. Ryan Nybo. The first report was prepared for a state criminal trial. The second report was ordered by the district court for the federal trial in which McGhee was convicted, the conviction he now appeals.

Although McGhee characterizes it in his brief as a request for a second competency examination, in effect McGhee was seeking a third competency examination, because the district court considered both expert reports in finding him competent. Each report indicated that McGhee was competent. In his report, Dr. Sharma opined, “The defendant is presently competent to stand trial. The…