United States v. Flores-Martinez, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 7583

Flores-Martinez, Honduran citizen, was deported for weapon possession and later reentered illegally after deportation with a felony conviction.
During proceedings, Flores-Martinez was disruptive and hostile toward counsel, with defense hoping for a court-ordered mental health evaluation.
Defense moved for a court-ordered evaluation; district court declined, and later refused to sua sponte hold a competency hearing absent clear medical opinion.
Trial proceeded; Dr. Morón's prior evaluation was inconclusive due to refusal to cooperate; court found no competency concerns and proceeded to trial.
During trial, Flores-Martinez was removed for disruptive conduct; he later testified (or attempted to testify) only on topics related to an in limine ruling.
Jury convicted Flores-Martinez; district court sentenced within guidelines to 16 months and three years of supervised release.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Duty to conduct competency hearing	Flores-Martinez argues district court failed to sua sponte hold a competency hearing.	Flores-Martinez contends the court should have ordered competency evaluation and hearing.	No reversible error; court did not abuse discretion.
Right to testify	Flores-Martinez claims denial of right to testify deprived him of a defense.	Defense asserts right to testify was improperly curtailed by limine and court rulings.	No reversible error; trial court properly limited testimony and right to testify was not violated.

Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (Supreme Court 1975) (establishes competency standards and due process necessity)
Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (Supreme Court 1960) (standard for competency to stand trial)
Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (Supreme Court 1966) (conviction while incompetent violates due process)
Ruston, 565 F.3d 892 (5th Cir. 2009) (abuse of discretion standard for sua sponte competency hearing)
Messervey, 317 F.3d 457 (5th Cir. 2002) (trial episodes alone can establish incompetence only if manifest)
Davis, 61 F.3d 291 (5th Cir. 1995) (reasonable cause standard for competency inquiry)
Curry v. Estelle, 531 F.2d 766 (5th Cir. 1976) (due process does not require full hearings for every hint of incompetence)
Horovitz, 584 F.2d 682 (5th Cir. 1978) (procedural due process requires adequate resolution of competency issue)
United States v. Simpson, 645 F.3d 300 (5th Cir. 2011) (voluntary cooperation determines competence interpretation)
United States v. Joseph, 333 F.3d 587 (5th Cir. 2003) (defendant's cooperation with counsel matters to competency assessments)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (Supreme Court 1993) (plain error review framework for unpreserved constitutional rights)
Phipps, 319 F.3d 177 (5th Cir. 2003) (plain error standard governs unpreserved constitutional challenges)
Shunk, 113 F.3d 31 (5th Cir. 1997) (clarifies application of plain error review for rights to testify)