United States v. Turner, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14240

Turner was convicted of felon in possession of a firearm/ammunition and represented himself at trial and sentencing.
PSR and records showed Turner had a history of paranoid schizophrenia and had not been medicated before arrest.
Before trial, Turner requested to proceed pro se; district court conducted colloquy and found him competent to waive counsel.
Trial included a voir dire focusing on religious topics, Turner's opening/closing statements with religious overtones, and DNA evidence linking the handgun.
Turner was convicted after a 20-minute jury deliberation; at sentencing his sentence was the mandatory minimum 180 months under ACCA.
On appeal Turner contends his waiver was not knowing/voluntary, and that competency standards and hearing procedures were inadequately addressed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Waiver of counsel knowing and voluntary	Turner (Turner) contends waiver was not adequately assessed for competency.	Turner argues district court failed to properly warn and evaluate his capacity to waive counsel.	Waiver found knowing and voluntary; district court adequately warned and observed competency.
Need for separate competency standard for pro se	Turner argues higher standard to represent oneself than to stand trial.	Government argues Edwards standard collapsed without severe mental illness; no two separate findings required.	No two distinct competency findings required; district court's competency finding was appropriate under Washington/Edwards framework.
Sua sponte competency hearing during trial	Turner contends court should have ordered a competency hearing based on his behavior.	Government contends no clear abuse of discretion; behavior did not compel a hearing.	No error; district court did not abuse discretion in not ordering a sua sponte competency hearing.
Competency before sentencing given PSR	PSR suggested severe mental illness; should have triggered competency review before sentencing.	Harmless error due to mandatory minimum; no power to impose a more lenient sentence if error occurred.	Harmless; failure to order competency review at sentencing did not affect the mandatory minimum sentence.

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (right to self-representation requires knowing, voluntary waiver)
Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, 317 U.S. 269 (1942) (pro se choice not requiring counsel)
Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (1993) (competence to waive counsel vs. to represent oneself)
Tovar, 541 U.S. 77 (2004) (warnings about dangers of self-representation must be rigorous)
Shafer v. Bowersox, 329 F.3d 637 (8th Cir. 2003) (record must show awareness of dangers of self-representation)
Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) (competency to proceed pro se tested against mental abilities)
United States v. Washington, 596 F.3d 926 (8th Cir. 2010) (no mandatory two-step competency inquiry for pro se requests; discretionary inquiry)
United States v. Kiderlen, 569 F.3d 358 (2009) (key inquiry is awareness of right to counsel and consequences of forgoing it)
United States v. Crawford, 487 F.3d 1101 (8th Cir. 2007) (discretion in ordering competency evaluations; trial court observations carry weight)
Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (1975) (due process requires competency determinations to prevent trial of incompetent defendants)