United States v. Joel Dreyer, 693 F.3d 803

Dreyer, 63, developed frontotemporal dementia with personality changes before and during the conspiracy to distribute controlled substances.
From ages 66 to 69 Dreyer participated in the conspiracy; in 2010 he was sentenced to 120 months after pleading guilty.
Three expert reports diagnosed FTD prior to sentencing; one government-commissioned and two defense reports, all noting behavioral and cognitive impairment.
Dreyer did not allocute at sentencing; defense argued his speech and judgment were impaired by dementia and urged leniency, but no competency hearing was ordered.
District court sentenced Dreyer at the low end of the guidelines range; Dreyer appealed arguing the court failed sua sponte to order a competency hearing.
The Ninth Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded for an evidentiary competency hearing before a different judge due to peculiar circumstances and potential bias on remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether failure to order a sua sponte competency hearing was plain error	Dreyer contends genuine doubt existed about competence at sentencing.	Government argues no plain error since no clear incompetence evidence at sentencing.	Yes; district court error plain; vacate and remand for competency hearing.
Whether record supports genuine doubt about competence at sentencing	Dreyer's three medical reports and defense counsel's statements created doubt about ability to assist defense.	Gov relies on calm demeanor and lack of explicit in-court signs; not enough to doubt competence.	Record sufficient to create genuine doubt; competency hearing required.
Whether remand to a new judge is appropriate	Remand to a different judge is warranted due to appearance of justice and potential bias.	Remand to original judge remains the norm unless unusual circumstances exist.	Remand to a different judge is warranted due to unusual circumstances and appearance of justice concerns.

Chavez v. United States, 656 F.2d 512 (9th Cir. 1981) (test for when evidence raises genuine doubt about competence; plain error review on failure to order hearing)
Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (U.S. 1975) (competence to stand trial essential; various factors not determinative alone)
Marks v. United States, 530 F.3d 799 (9th Cir. 2008) (plain error review for failure to order competency hearing when evidence suggests incompetence)
Fernandez v. United States, 388 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2004) (standard for evaluating competence to stand trial and sentencing)
Duncan v. Duncan, 643 F.3d 1242 (9th Cir. 2011) (competence analysis in sentencing context; factors for doubt and hearing)
United States v. White, 670 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2012) (comprehensive review for first-time appeal of lack of sua sponte hearing; deference to trial judge)
Mendez-Sanchez v. United States, 563 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2009) (no incompetence where defendant irrational but not impaired in understanding or consulting counsel)
Odle v. Woodford, 238 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. 2001) (evidence of mental disorder may require hearing depending on competence indicators)
Mikaelian, 168 F.3d 380 (9th Cir. 1999) (unusual remand grounds factors for sending resentencing to a different judge)