United States v. Carl Romero
833 F.3d 1151
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Romero, a convicted felon, was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm and pleaded not guilty.
- At arraignment counsel requested a competency evaluation; the court initially found Romero competent to stand trial.
- Romero sought to proceed pro se; at trial start the court found him competent to stand trial but not competent to represent himself under Indiana v. Edwards and appointed counsel.
- Subsequent evaluations led the court (March 19, 2014) to find Romero not competent and to commit him for restoration to the Attorney General; Romero did not arrive for treatment until June 19, 2014.
- The district court excluded the period of competency proceedings and restoration from the Speedy Trial Act computation and later convicted Romero; he appealed claiming 81 days between March 19 and June 19 were unreasonably excluded under the transportation exclusion, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(F).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 81 days between court-ordered commitment and arrival for treatment must be counted under the Speedy Trial Act | Romero: the delay is a transportation delay governed by §3161(h)(1)(F); delays over 10 days are presumed unreasonable, so 81 days should run | Government: once court found Romero incompetent, §3161(h)(4) excludes any period during which defendant is incompetent, so the entire interval is excluded | Court: Affirmed — §3161(h)(4) unambiguously excludes all time when defendant is incompetent; the transportation rule does not negate that exclusion |
Key Cases Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (recognition of the right to self-representation)
- Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (a competent defendant may nonetheless be incompetent to represent himself)
- Bloate v. United States, 559 U.S. 196 (overview of Speedy Trial Act time limits)
- United States v. Tinklenberg, 563 U.S. 647 (§3161(h)(1) exclusions apply automatically)
- Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348 (criminal trial of an incompetent defendant violates due process)
- Medina v. California, 505 U.S. 437 (due process principles concerning competency)
- United States v. Hernandez-Meza, 720 F.3d 760 (rule of statutory interpretation; avoid rendering provisions superfluous)
- United States v. Strong, 489 F.3d 1055 (related discussion on detention reasonableness under restoration statutes)