United States v. Joel Dreyer
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 416
9th Cir.2013Background
- Dreyer, 63 at onset, developed frontotemporal dementia and later pleaded guilty at age 73 to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute oxycodone and to distribute oxycodone.
- Three expert reports before sentencing diagnosed frontotemporal dementia but did not conclude Dreyer was legally incompetent to be sentenced; one report suggested competence to plead guilty.
- Dreyer’s counsel stated he would not allocute due to dementia, and no motion for a competency hearing was filed or ordered by the district court.
- At sentencing in December 2010, the court read the medical reports, considered Dreyer’s condition, and sentenced him to 120 months with a recommendation for placement at a federal medical center.
- Dreyer appealed contending the district court erred by failing to sua sponte order a competency hearing; the issue centers on whether plain error review applies to the district court’s action.
- The majority and dissent debate the appropriate standard for determining whether a competency hearing should have been ordered, and whether the record shows genuine doubt about competence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court’s failure to order a competency hearing sua sponte was plain error. | Dreyer (plaintiff) urged plain error review; substantial medical evidence created genuine doubt about competence. | The district court’s decision not to order a hearing was reasonable; no plain error. | Yes, plain error; vacate and remand for competency evaluation. |
| Whether the record created genuine doubt about Dreyer’s competence at sentencing. | Medical experts showed impairment affecting behavior and judgment, implying possible incompetence. | Medical findings did not show Dreyer incapable of understanding proceedings or aiding counsel. | Record supports genuine doubt requiring a competency hearing. |
| Whether Dreyer’s allocution choice affected competency duty. | Allocution decline due to dementia should have triggered scrutiny for competency. | Declining to allocute is not alone proof of incompetence; district court could rely on counsel and records. | Allocution choice alone did not negate competency; however, evidence supports care in assessing competence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Duncan v. United States, 643 F.3d 1242 (9th Cir. 2011) (competency before sentencing; brain impairment case cited for comparison)
- Mendez-Sanchez v. United States, 563 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2009) (plain error review when no competency hearing sua sponte)
- Marks v. United States, 530 F.3d 799 (9th Cir. 2008) (when evidence raises genuine doubt as to competence; plain error standard applied)
- Fernandez v. United States, 388 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2004) (competence and allocution considerations in sentencing context)
- White v. United States, 670 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2012) (role of court’s observations and expert reports in competence evaluation)
- Odie v. Woodford, 238 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. 2001) (evidence of severe brain injury; competency considerations in trial/post-trial contexts)
- Turman v. United States, 122 F.3d 1167 (9th Cir. 1997) (plain error standard; competency-related inquiries at sentencing)
- Chavez v. United States, 656 F.2d 512 (9th Cir. 1981) (foundation for doubt-based plain error analysis)