UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4638
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DAMON ANTOINE GAITHER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.
(CR-03-456-WDQ)
Submitted: July 31, 2006 Decided: August 30, 2006
Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Howard L. Cardin, CARDIN & GITOMER, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellant. Charles Joseph Peters, Sr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Damon Antoine Gaither appeals his conviction and sentence
to 276 months in prison and five years of supervised release
following his guilty plea to one count of using and carrying a
firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence in violation
of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 924(c) (2000). Gaither’s attorney has filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
asserting there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but raising
the issue of whether the district court erred by accepting
Gaither’s guilty plea as voluntary and intelligent in view of his
mental condition. Gaither has been informed of his right to file
a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. We affirm.
Counsel argues the district court failed to adequately
pursue Gaither’s mental condition to determine whether he was
capable of entering a voluntary and intelligent guilty plea. In
any criminal case, a competency determination is necessary only
when a court has reason to doubt the defendant’s competence.
Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 401 n.13 (1993); see also 18 U.S.C.
§ 4241(a) (2000). A competency hearing should be held when there
is reasonable cause to believe the defendant is presently suffering
from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent
to such an extent that he is unable to understand the nature and
consequences of the proceedings against him. United States v.
Mason, 52 F.3d 1286, 1289 (4th Cir. 1995). Whereas the focus of a
- 2 -
competency inquiry is whether a defendant has the ability to
understand the proceedings, the purpose of the “knowing and
voluntary” inquiry is to determine whether a defendant actually
does understand the consequences of a particular decision and
whether the decision is uncoerced. Godinez, 509 U.S. at 401 n.12.
Pursuant to his plea agreement with the Government,
Gaither admitted participating in the planning and execution of a
robbery that resulted in the shooting death of one of the victims.
As a result of Gaither’s guilty plea, the district court dismissed
nine other counts against him for causing the death of a human
being in the course of using a firearm during a crime of violence;
causing the death of a human being in the course of using a firearm
during a drug trafficking crime; conspiracy to obstruct commerce by
robbery; conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana;
conspiracy to carry firearms during a crime of violence;
obstruction of commerce by robbery; possession with intent to
distribute marijuana; using a firearm during a drug trafficking
crime; and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Gaither
stipulated and agreed that an upward departure from the ten-year
mandatory minimum range under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) to a range of
between seventeen and twenty-four years was reasonable and
appropriate based on the dismissed conduct and seriousness of his
conduct.
- 3 -
Subsequent to the offense but prior to his guilty plea,
Gaither suffered a closed head injury in an automobile accident
that resulted in headaches and impaired cognitive abilities. A
psychologist determined Gaither had deficits in concentration,
attention, long-term memory, and communication skills. However,
Gaither’s speech was normal, he had immediate recall, and he was
not delusional. Gaither’s counsel has acknowledged that although
Gaither was “slow,” he was not rendered unable to understand the
proceedings or to assist counsel in his defense.
We have reviewed the record and conclude the district
court did not err in accepting Gaither’s guilty plea. Prior to
accepting the plea, the district court engaged in an extensive
colloquy to ensure that it was knowing and voluntary. Gaither
confirmed his understanding of the proceedings by his answers
during the colloquy. Although his reading skills were limited,
Gaither’s attorney read the entire plea agreement to him and
Gaither affirmed he understood the agreement. Gaither specifically
acknowledged that as a result of his plea, his sentence would be
between seventeen and twenty-four years in prison. He affirmed
that counsel had acted in accord with his wishes, and he was not
coerced into pleading guilty. Moreover, his answers regarding his
treatment and medication two years prior to pleading guilty were
not sufficient to give the district court cause to believe he was
- 4 -
presently unable to understand the nature and consequences of his
guilty plea and the proceedings against him.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Gaither’s conviction and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of
his right to petition to the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed,
but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on the client.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 5 -