United States v. Andrew Wingo, 789 F.3d 1226

Background

Andrew Wingo was indicted on numerous fraud and money-laundering counts arising from his operation of Angel Food Ministries; he later entered a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea to one count with an 84-month cap.
Prior to plea and sentencing, substantial medical records and expert evaluations showed lifelong craniosynostosis, severe brain atrophy, hydrocephalus, memory deficits, and progressive cognitive decline; multiple physicians expressed concern about his ability to assist counsel.
Lay witnesses (wife, coworkers, friends) reported marked deterioration: memory lapses, getting lost while driving, disorientation, and inability to follow through on tasks; wife testified to early-onset dementia at a bail-revocation hearing.
At the change-of-plea hearing, Wingo’s counsel affirmed he was competent; the district court accepted the plea and later sentenced him to the agreed 84 months without ordering a competency hearing.
Wingo appealed, arguing the court (and the government) had reasonable cause to doubt his competence and that the court therefore was required under 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a) and due process to hold a competency hearing sua sponte.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion by not sua sponte ordering a competency hearing under 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a)	Wingo: abundant medical and lay evidence created reasonable cause to believe he may have been incompetent, triggering a mandatory hearing	District court/government: Wingo’s courtroom demeanor and counsel’s affirmation showed competence; no motion was filed before sentencing	Court: Reversed — combined medical opinions and reports of irrational behavior created reasonable cause; failure to hold a hearing was an abuse of discretion
Whether counsel’s affirmation of competence forecloses court’s duty to inquire sua sponte	Wingo: counsel’s silence/affirmation insufficient where independent evidence raises concern	Court/government: counsel’s statements weigh against doubt and can be persuasive	Court: Counsel’s affirmation is not dispositive; court must act as safety net and may not rely solely on counsel when record shows reasonable cause
Remedy when court fails to hold required competency hearing	Wingo: conviction and sentence should be vacated if competency cannot be reliably assessed nunc pro tunc or if found incompetent	Government: (implicit) uphold plea if defendant was competent	Court: Remanded — district court to determine whether a meaningful nunc pro tunc competency assessment can be made; if not or if incompetent then vacate plea and sentence (government may retry if/when competent)
Standard for triggering § 4241(a) hearing	Wingo: the aggregate of prior medical opinion and observed irrational behavior satisfies the bona fide doubt/"reasonable cause" standard	Government: normal colloquy and counsel assurances diminish doubt	Court: Adopted Eleventh Circuit three-factor "bona fide doubt" test (irrational behavior, courtroom demeanor, prior medical opinion) and found the aggregate evidence satisfied the standard

Key Cases Cited

Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (1965) (a court must inquire into competency when bona fide doubt exists; demeanor cannot alone negate uncontradicted evidence of irrational behavior)
Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (1966) (procedural due-process requires adequate procedures to protect incompetent defendants, including competency hearings)
Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348 (1996) (defendant has substantive right not to be tried while incompetent; courts must ensure competence before trial)
United States v. Rodriguez, 751 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2014) (defining competence to understand proceedings and assist counsel)
Tiller v. Esposito, 911 F.2d 575 (11th Cir. 1990) (recognizing court’s obligation under § 4241 to order a competency hearing sua sponte when reasonable cause exists)
United States v. Nickels, 324 F.3d 1250 (11th Cir. 2003) ("bona fide doubt" standard satisfies § 4241(a) reasonable-cause requirement)