Maxwell
Maxwell v. Roe
Opinion
Lead Opinion
AMENDED MEMORANDUM *
We grant the State’s motion to recall the mandate and amend our disposition to clarify the reasons why we hold that a district court hearing is appropriate in this case.
Clifton Maxwell appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas corpus petition, arguing that the trial in which a jury convicted him of first-degree murder was a violation of his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights because he was incompetent to stand trial. Claims regarding incompetence are questions of fact, so, under the standard of review applicable to habeas petitions, Maxwell must show that the trial court’s conclusion that he was competent to stand trial was an “unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented.” Torres v. Prunty, 223 F.3d 1103, 1107 (9th Cir.2000). Under our jurisprudence, Maxwell “was entitled to a hearing on his competency to stand trial if a reasonable judge would have ... a ‘bona fide doubt’ [as to] competence.” Id. at 1108 . Moreover, a trial court’s finding of competence may be reversed as unreasonable if the fact finding procedure followed *215 by the judge was clearly inadequate. Id. at 1109 .