United States v. Albert Garza, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 9310

Background

Federal agents discovered Garza downloading child pornography from a file-sharing network; search of his home recovered two computers and a CD with thousands of images and videos. Garza was indicted for receipt/distribution and possession of child pornography.
Garza’s first counsel retained Dr. Thomas Middleton, who (after a single interview and no medical-record review) suggested Garza appeared unable to rationally address his legal circumstances and tentatively diagnosed dementia from uncontrolled diabetes.
The parties stipulated to commitment for a competency evaluation; Garza was sent to BOP medical custody and evaluated by Dr. Lisa Hope, who concluded Garza was competent and reported possible malingering of some test items.
After release from medical custody, Garza’s new lawyer did not pursue a competency hearing; no formal competency finding was made by the district court.
At trial Garza testified and made inconsistent statements (admitting downloading in the arrest interview but denying prior exposure to child pornography on the stand). The jury convicted on both counts; at sentencing the court found Garza had willfully perjured himself and described him as malingering.
On appeal Garza argued the district court plainly erred by failing to sua sponte convene a competency hearing under the substantial-evidence/plain-error standard for competency challenges.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Garza)	Defendant's Argument (Gov't)	Held
Whether district court plainly erred by failing to sua sponte hold a competency hearing	Garza argued substantial evidence of incompetence (Middleton’s report, Garza’s courtroom testimony, and prior commitment) created a genuine doubt, so the court should have ordered a hearing	Government argued post-commitment evidence (Hope’s report, courtroom behavior, counsel’s inaction) eliminated reasonable doubt; no sua sponte hearing was required	Court held no plain error: a reasonable judge would not have harbored a genuine doubt about competency because the total record lacked substantial evidence of incompetence
Whether the § 4241/4247 commitment alone required a competency hearing	Garza argued commitment under § 4247 and the statutory duty in § 4241(a) established reasonable cause mandating a hearing	Government argued the commitment for evaluation does not automatically create a continuing reasonable-cause obligation once contrary evidence appears	Court held commitment does not automatically entitle a defendant to a hearing; the full record must be considered and the § 4247 exam can dispel reasonable cause
Effect of defense counsel’s and district court’s inaction after Hope’s report and during trial	Garza suggested counsel’s failure to renew the competency challenge and the court’s failure to act were errors that should not weigh against finding plain error	Government pointed to counsel’s strategic decision to drop the issue and the judge’s observations of malingering as reasons to defer to their judgments	Court viewed counsel’s withdrawal of the claim and judge’s on-the-record observations (malingering/perjury) as persuasive indicia that no reasonable judge would have had a genuine doubt

Key Cases Cited

Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (1975) (due process forbids trying a defendant who lacks capacity; courts must protect competency rights)
Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (1966) (failure to observe procedures to protect incompetent defendants violates due process)
United States v. Dreyer, 705 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 2013) (plain-error review; substantial-evidence standard — reasonable judge must have a genuine doubt to require sua sponte hearing)
Bassett v. McCarthy, 549 F.2d 616 (9th Cir. 1977) (medical diagnoses do not automatically compel a competency hearing absent corroborating behavior or other indicators)
United States v. Marks, 530 F.3d 799 (9th Cir. 2008) (competency inquiry considers medical history, courtroom behavior, and counsel’s statements)