United States v. Mark Andrews
20-4562
| 4th Cir. | May 12, 2022Background
- Mark Leon Andrews pleaded guilty (no written plea agreement) to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924, and was sentenced to 288 months’ imprisonment.
- He appealed, raising: (1) district court’s competency finding and refusal to order a second competency evaluation; (2) sufficiency of the Rule 11 plea colloquy as to the elements of § 922(g); and (3) procedural and substantive unreasonableness of his sentence (including a Guidelines cross‑reference to kidnapping and an ACCA enhancement based on a prior voluntary manslaughter conviction).
- The district court found Andrews competent to plead guilty and declined to order a second psychiatric evaluation before plea and sentencing.
- At sentencing the court applied USSG §2K2.1 cross‑reference to kidnapping/abduction and found Andrews qualified as an Armed Career Criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) based on a North Carolina voluntary manslaughter conviction.
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed the competency and competency‑evaluation decisions for abuse of discretion, the plea for plain error, and the sentence for procedural and substantive reasonableness, and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Andrews' Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competency to plead guilty | District court abused discretion; Andrews was not competent | Court properly evaluated demeanor, counsel consultations, and record and found competence | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion in finding Andrews competent |
| Whether to order second competency evaluation | Court should have ordered a new psychiatric exam before proceeding | No reasonable cause under §4241 to require another evaluation; existing record sufficed | Affirmed — refusal to order second evaluation not an abuse of discretion |
| Adequacy of Rule 11 plea colloquy (elements of §922(g)) | Plea invalid because court did not inform him of each element | Colloquy adequately explained offense; government need not prove defendant knew he was prohibited from possessing firearm | Affirmed — no plain error in accepting plea |
| Sentencing: Guidelines cross‑reference, ACCA predicate, substantive reasonableness | Cross‑reference and ACCA enhancement invalid; sentence unreasonable | Cross‑reference supported by record; voluntary manslaughter qualifies as ACCA violent felony; within‑Guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable | Affirmed — no reversible procedural or substantive error |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ziegler, 1 F.4th 219 (4th Cir. 2021) (standards for competency hearing and review)
- United States v. Moussaoui, 591 F.3d 263 (4th Cir. 2010) (district court best positioned to assess competency via demeanor)
- United States v. Bernard, 708 F.3d 583 (4th Cir. 2013) (competency requires factual and rational understanding and ability to consult with counsel)
- Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (1993) (trial court's role in assessing defendant's capacity and demeanor)
- United States v. Torrez, 869 F.3d 291 (4th Cir. 2017) (§4241 trigger for competency hearing)
- United States v. Moody, 2 F.4th 180 (4th Cir. 2021) (government need not prove defendant knew he was prohibited under §922(g))
- United States v. Ashford, 718 F.3d 377 (4th Cir. 2013) (framework for applying USSG §2K2.1 cross‑reference)
- United States v. Smith, 882 F.3d 460 (4th Cir. 2018) (voluntary manslaughter can qualify as a violent felony for ACCA)