United States v. McLean
2:21-cr-00335
M.D. Ala.Mar 25, 2022Background
- Defendant Willie Doss McLean pleaded guilty and the court reviewed his presentence report and held a hearing on March 17, 2022.
- McLean admitted he did not understand the mandatory‑minimum 15‑year sentence until after his plea; records and court observations show limited education (left in 9th grade), childhood SSI receipt and Thorazine use, reading‑comprehension difficulties, unclear job duties, and possible cognitive limitations.
- Presentence materials and defense submissions indicate a history of severe substance‑use problems and possible other mental‑health conditions; the charged offense is possession of a pistol and cocaine (Aug. 2016); a separate 2016 shooting (resulting in an acquittal) may be relevant conduct for sentencing.
- The court found reasonable cause under 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a) to evaluate McLean’s competency and ordered an outpatient competency exam under § 4247(b).
- The court also invoked 18 U.S.C. § 3552(b) to order a comprehensive mental‑health evaluation for sentencing purposes to inform § 3553(a) considerations (including ACEs, substance‑use disorder, and RDAP eligibility).
- Dr. Jennifer Cox was appointed to perform both evaluations (with hours tracked separately), report to the court and probation by May 6, 2022, and submit separate bills as directed; the Probation Office must provide records and facilitate the evaluation.
Issues
| Issue | United States' Position | McLean's Position | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is reasonable cause to order a competency evaluation under 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a) | Presentence report and court observations show McLean may be incompetent and unable to understand proceedings or assist in defense | No affirmative contest recorded; defendant’s statements and records suggest limited capacity | Court finds reasonable cause and orders a competency evaluation by a qualified examiner (outpatient) |
| Whether the competency exam should be outpatient or inpatient | Outpatient evaluation is sufficient absent a demonstrated need for inpatient care | Not argued as requiring inpatient evaluation | Court orders outpatient evaluation per § 4247(b), citing authority preferring outpatient exams unless inpatient is necessary |
| Whether the court may order a sentencing mental‑health evaluation under 18 U.S.C. § 3552(b) and its scope (ACEs, substance‑use disorder, treatment, RDAP eligibility) | A comprehensive study is necessary to apply § 3553(a), assess impact of ACEs/substance abuse on conduct, and identify BOP programs/treatment including RDAP eligibility | Defense sought evaluation and raised history of substance abuse and mental‑health concerns | Court orders a comprehensive sentencing evaluation addressing psychological history, ACEs, diagnoses, prognosis, effect on offense, RDAP eligibility, and specific treatment recommendations for incarceration and supervised release |
| Administrative logistics: deadlines, billing, and materials | Competency evaluation costs billed to U.S. Attorney; sentencing evaluation billed to Probation; report due May 6, 2022; probation to provide records and facilitate scheduling | No objection; defense to assist as needed | Court directs Dr. Cox to separate hours/bills, file report under seal by deadline (or request extension), and directs Probation Office to provide documents and assist arrangements |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Neal, 679 F.3d 737 (8th Cir. 2012) (district courts should order outpatient competency evaluations unless inpatient care is reasonably necessary)
- United States v. Carter, 506 F. Supp. 3d 1204 (M.D. Ala. 2020) (substance‑use disorders and ACEs can be relevant to § 3553(a)(1) sentencing analysis)
- United States v. Mosley, 277 F. Supp. 3d 1294 (M.D. Ala. 2017) (evaluation of substance‑use disorder may be necessary before sentencing)
- United States v. Mosley, 312 F. Supp. 3d 1289 (M.D. Ala. 2018) (consideration of defendant’s substance‑use disorder in determining sentence)