Mark Simon v. Josie Gastelo, 697 F. App'x 903

Mark Simon was tried for violent offenses arising from an altercation at a state fair; he rejected a 4‑year plea and was later convicted by a jury and sentenced to 9 years.
Simon exhausted state remedies without relief and filed a federal habeas petition; the district court denied relief.
The Ninth Circuit granted a certificate of appealability on two claims: (1) the trial court should have held a competency hearing, and (2) trial counsel was ineffective for not requesting one.
The panel reviewed the last reasoned state-court decision under AEDPA deference (28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)).
The court held the state court’s finding that no competency hearing was required was not an unreasonable factual determination and that counsel was not ineffective—counsel had raised mental‑health concerns and sought an evaluation before sentencing, and Simon failed to show prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Simon)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether the trial court was required to hold a competency hearing	Simon argued evidence raised a bona fide doubt about his competence, triggering a hearing	State argued the trial record did not present sufficient indicia of incompetence to require a hearing	Court held the state court reasonably found no bona fide doubt; no hearing required
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to request a competency hearing	Simon argued counsel should have moved for a competency hearing and that failure prejudiced his defense	State argued counsel raised the issue and requested a mental‑health evaluation; no gross incompetence or prejudice shown	Court held counsel was not ineffective under Strickland and AEDPA standards

Thompson v. Runnels, 705 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir.) (standard for reviewing last reasoned state-court decision)
Mendez v. Knowles, 556 F.3d 757 (9th Cir. 2009) (competency‑hearing rulings are factual findings)
Torres v. Prunty, 223 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir.) (standard for unreasonable factual determination under § 2254(d)(2))
Williams v. Woodford, 384 F.3d 567 (9th Cir.) (bona fide doubt standard for competency hearings)
Stanley v. Cullen, 633 F.3d 852 (9th Cir.) (ineffective‑assistance standard when competency indicia exist)
de Kaplany v. Enomoto, 540 F.2d 975 (9th Cir. en banc) (definition of bona fide doubt)
United States v. Brugnara, 856 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir.) (comparable competency‑evidence precedent)
Davis v. Woodford, 384 F.3d 628 (9th Cir.) (retrospective incompetence determinations disfavored)
Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (U.S. 1975) (competency elements: understanding proceedings and assisting counsel)
Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111 (U.S. 2009) (AEDPA’s highly deferential review)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong ineffective assistance standard)
Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (U.S. 1986) (counsel must show gross incompetence to prevail on certain claims)
Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (U.S. 2012) (prejudice inquiry for rejected plea offers)