Martinez-Hernandez
United States v. Martinez-Hernandez
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
Julio Martinez-Hernandez (“Martinez”) appeals his conviction for being an alien found in the United States without permission following deportation pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326 , contending that he was incompetent to stand trial. We reverse.
We review Martinez’s argument concerning his competency to stand trial for clear error. United States v. Frank, 956 F.2d 872, 874 (9th Cir.1992). The district court clearly erred in its determination that the government met its burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that Martinez was competent to stand trial. Id. at 875 . The government failed to demonstrate that Martinez possessed a “sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding.” Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 402 , 80 S.Ct. 788 , 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960) (per cu-riam) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also 18 U.S.C. § 4241 (d) (requiring a defendant to be declared mentally incompetent if he is “unable ... to assist properly in his defense”).
As in United States v. Hoskie, 950 F.2d 1388, 1392 (9th Cir.1991) (holding that the district court committed clear error by finding the defendant…
Dissenting Opinion
Graber, J.
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent.
The district court carefully and reasonably explained why Dr. Carroll’s conelu- *986 sions about competence were persuasive. Even more importantly, the court described Defendant’s demeanor and participation in the proceedings. These personal observations, in addition to the expert evidence, caused the court to find that Defendant was in fact competent to stand trial. Unlike in United States v. Hoskie, 950 F.2d 1388, 1392 (9th Cir.1991), where “the district court itself was not convinced that Hoskie was competent, but was unwilling to find incompetency” because of the defendant’s dangerousness, here the court plainly was convinced that Defendant had the requisite ability, at the time of trial, to consult with counsel and understand the proceedings. Accordingly, I would not find clear error and would affirm.