United States v. Markeith Cox
713 F. App'x 891
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Markeith Cox completed prison in Oct 2010 and began a five‑year supervised release with special sex‑offender conditions (treatment, testing, SORNA and state registration, obey probation officer).
- Cox repeatedly violated release conditions; his supervised release was revoked several times (revocations in 2012, 2013, 2015) before the 2016 revocation at issue.
- In June 2016 probation alleged 13 violations (multiple failures to attend sex‑offender treatment, SORNA and state registration failures, failure to follow probation instructions). Cox admitted all violations at the revocation hearing.
- During the plea colloquy Cox affirmed he was not under influence, not recently treated/hospitalized, and understood rights; the district court found him competent and accepted the admissions.
- At sentencing the government sought an upward variance based on repeated violations; the court imposed 3 years imprisonment and 5 years supervised release.
- On appeal Cox argued the district court abused its discretion by failing to sua sponte order a competency hearing given his homelessness, family history, and alleged forgetfulness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court had a duty to order a competency hearing sua sponte under 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a) | Cox: homelessness, tumultuous family history, and chronic forgetfulness gave reasonable cause to doubt competency and warranted a hearing | Government/District Court: record showed no irrational behavior, no prior medical opinion, and Cox’s demeanor and answers indicated competency | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion in not ordering a hearing because the record did not present sufficiently evident signs of incompetence |
Key Cases Cited
- Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (discusses factors relevant to competency determinations)
- United States v. Williams, 468 F.2d 819 (5th Cir. 1972) (standard for abuse‑of‑discretion review of sua sponte competency hearings)
- United States v. Wingo, 789 F.3d 1226 (11th Cir. 2015) (applies Williams to current competency statute)
- Tiller v. Esposito, 911 F.2d 575 (11th Cir. 1990) (focus inquiry on what the trial court knew at the time)
- Watts v. Singletary, 87 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 1996) (failure to hold competency hearing can presumptively violate due process)