United States v. Gary Lindley
774 F.2d 993
9th Cir.
1985
Check Treatment

*1 993 SNEED, NELSON, NORRIS, Before and Judges. America, Circuit of UNITED STATES Plaintiff-Appellee, PER CURIAM.

v. Gary Lindley appeals Defendant his con- LINDLEY, Gary Defendant-Appellant. attempting escape viction for to from the No. 85-5009. Lompoc in Penitentiary Federal violation of (1982). 18 U.S.C. 751 His sole contention § Appeals, United States Court of appeal on is that the district court erred in Ninth Circuit. finding competent him to stand trial. 4, Argued Sept. and Submitted 1985. We affirm the conviction because the district court’s Lindley determination that 24, Decided Oct. 1985. competent was to stand is not clearly trial

erroneous.* The upon district court relied the psychiatrists declarations of two who examining concluded after Lindley that he competent was to stand trial. The district court clearly did not err in assigning more weight findings to the of psychia these trists than contrary to the conclusion of a psychiatrist by retained the defense. unpersuasive Lindley’s We find conten- psychiatric tion that the reports upon relied by the probative district court had no value lapse because of a of time between the competency examinations and the hearing, just which was conducted before trial. Lindley’s psychiatrist own admitted that lapse the of time did not reports render the invalid determining as a basis for his com- petency Further, to stand trial. Lindley proof no change offered of a in mental condition in intervening the months and refused to to submit further examinations. AFFIRMED. Freedman, David Atty., G. Asst. U.S. Los Cal., Angeles, plaintiff-appellee. for NELSON, Judge, dissenting. Circuit Gyorgy, John P. Deputy Federal Public I respectfully must dissent it because is Defender, Cal., Angeles, Los for defendant- clear to me that the district court in erred appellant. finding that the Government had met its establishing Lindley’s

burden of compe- tence to stand trial.

* States, 512, (9th 101, In (1984). v. United 656 F.2d Chavez 517 105 S.Ct. 83 L.Ed.2d 46 Under the Cir.1981), competency we held that McConney analysis, the issue of competency functional to to clearly stand trial is "essentially reviewable under the stand trial involves an factual in quiry", erroneous standard. We believe (quoting was 728 F.2d at 1203 Chavez Pullman-Stan by Swint, 273, 288, 1781, not undermined our en banc decision in dard v. 456 U.S. 102 S.Ct. 1790, (9th McConney, United States (1982)), v. 728 F.2d 1195 72 L.Ed.2d 66 which calls for — Cir.1984) (en banc), denied, U.S. —, clearly cert. erroneous review. *2 994 WHITE, Plaintiff-Appellee, John H. compe- Lindley’s establish to

In order to show that had tence, the Government v. present ability to Lindley had “sufficient Margaret HECKLER, Secretary M. of Chavez lawyer----” his ... with consult Services, Health and Human 512, (9th States, F.2d 518 656 v. United Defendant-Appellant. Yet, only added). the Cir.1981) (emphasis No. 85-1320. of presented the Government evidence medical re- two competence were Lindley’s United States Court Appeals, of be- four months more than prepared ports Tenth Circuit. These re- hearing. competency the fore Sept. 30, 1985. Lindley’s to establish insufficient ports are Coburn, had exam- Dr. who competency. 25, 1985. As Amended Nov. hearing, morning of the Lindley the ined presently Lindley not that was testified Dr. It is true that

competent to stand trial. medi- that the Government’s

Coburn stated complete informa- reports, if based on

cal basis for the

tion, might provide a valid However, he

competency determination. they that that he did not believe stated

also complete information. on

were based credible, the

Thus, arguably and the most ability Lindley’s present

only, evidence of the testi- attorney with his was

to consult Lindley was not

mony of Dr. Coburn that

competent to stand trial. further

Lindley’s refusal to submit to the does not excuse Govern

examination provide of failure to evidence

ment’s the

present ability. It is clear that district Lindley to power had the to order

court despite his psychiatric evaluation

submit to 4241(b) (1982); See

objections. 18 U.S.C. § Wade, 258, v. 258- United States 489 F.2d curiam). Indeed, (9th Cir.1973) oth (per

59 suggest light that in of the con

er cases testimony age the of

flicting medical and reports, medical the dis

the Government’s duty court had a to order this evaluation.

trict Ives, v. United States 574 F.2d

Cf . denied, cert. 1002, (9th Cir.1978), 1004 445 919, 1283, 100 63 L.Ed.2d 605

U.S. S.Ct. required (“Further is

(1980) inquiry when the there is information available to

ever regard

court which raises sufficient doubt

ing competence to stand tri a defendant’s

al”) added). Thus, (emphasis we cannot inadequacy of the

excuse the Government’s Lindley’s

proof objections. because of

Therefore, Lindley's I would reverse con

viction, grant and him a new trial.