At page 259 Determining competency hearing requirements under statute6 citing casesprior history of mental illness and previous diagnosis of insanity raised bona fide doubt
- Nash v. Ryan, 581 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2009).published See McMurtrey v. Ryan, 539 F.3d 1112, 1118 (9th Cir.2008); Morris v. United States, 414 F.2d 258, 259 (9th Cir.1969).
- United States v. Plascencia-Valenzuela, 14 F. App'x 764 (9th Cir. 2001).unpublishedWhen a district court fails to conduct a competency hearing at the proper time, we must order that the “conviction is reversed and the case remanded to the district court for a hearing on appellant’s present competency and for a new trial…
- State v. Tilden, 988 S.W.2d 568 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).published Morris v. U.S., 414 F.2d 258, 259 (9 th Cir.1969).
- Charles M. Yarton v. United States, 87 F.3d 1326 (9th Cir. 1996).unpublished(prior history of mental illness and previous diagnosis of insanity raised bona fide doubt)
- Mitchell Thomas Blazak, Petitioner-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. James R. Ricketts, Donald Wawrzaszek, Respondents-Ap Pellants-Cross-Appellees, 1 F.3d 891 (9th Cir. 1993).published Moreover, unlike Moore, there was no finding of competency at the time of Blazak's trial. 40 In Morris v. United States, 414 F.2d 258, 259 (9th Cir.1969), we held that "sufficient doubt" of competency was raised by the presentence report w…
At page 258 PER CURIAM: Appellant was convicted of an attempt to rob a federally insured bank and was sentenced to a term of fifteen years under 18 U.S.C. § 4208(a). No…2 citing cases
- United States v. Joel Dreyer, 705 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 2013).published In Morris v. United States, 414 F.2d 258, 258-59 (9th Cir.1969), Morris challenged his conviction and sentence based on evidence that he had a history of severe mental illness and multiple documented periods of psychosis.
- United States v. Joel Dreyer, 693 F.3d 803 (9th Cir. 2012).published In Morris v. United States, 414 F.2d 258, 258-59 (9th Cir.1969), Morris challenged his conviction and sentence based on evidence that he had a history of severe mental illness and multiple documented periods of psychosis.
Other citing cases
- United States v. Isaac J. Taylor, 437 F.2d 371 (4th Cir. 1971).published
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
Appellant was convicted of an attempt to rob a federally insured bank and was sentenced to a term of fifteen years under 18 U.S.C. § 4208(a).
No hearing on competency to stand trial under 18 U.S.C. § 4244, was requested by the United States Attorney[*259] or defense counsel and the court did not on its own motion order such a hearing.
18 U.S.C. § 4244 reads in part: “Whenever after arrest and prior to the imposition of sentence * * * the United States Attorney has reasonable cause to believe that a person charged with an offense against the United States may be presently insane or otherwise so mentally incompetent as to be unable to understand the proceedings against him or properly to assist in his own defense, he shall file a motion for a judicial determination of such mental competency of the accused * * The defense may make a similar motion or the court may make its own motion. In either of the three situations the court shall cause the accused to be examined as to his sanity and/or competence to stand trial.
Until the receipt of the pre-sentence report in this case there did not appear the “reasonable cause” to trigger the proceedings under 18 U.S.C. § 4244. But the history of mental illness and treatment, the finding that at a prior period appellant had at that time been insane, although apparently found thereafter to have recovered his sanity and the prior findings at various times of a psychotic condition, all contained in the pre-sentence report, provided the “reasonable cause to believe”, etc.
The judgment must be vacated and the cause remanded in order that the appellant be afforded a competency hearing under 18 U.S.C. § 4244.
Whether the judgment of conviction should be reinstated by the trial court if at the hearing the appellant were found competent on the date of his arraignment, trial and sentence (January 9, 1967 to March 20, 1967) is a question no longer open in the circuit. Meador v. United States, 332 F.2d 935 (9 Cir. 1934).
Such a nunc pro tunc procedure is available in cases arising under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Meador, supra, p. 938, and note 6; but on direct appeals from a conviction a new trial must be ordered, and the competency hearing then determines, as of the date of the new proceedings, whether the defendant is then competent. Meador, supra, p. 939.
Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 80 S.Ct. 788, 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960), on an appeal from a conviction spoke of the “difficulties of retrospectively determining the petitioner’s competency as of more than a year ago” and remanded to the district court for a hearing “to ascertain petitioner’s competency to stand trial, and for a new trial if petitioner is found competent”. Id. p. 403, 80 S.Ct. p. 789.
The judgment of conviction is reversed and the case remanded to the district court for a hearing on appellant’s present competency and for a new trial if appellant is found competent.