FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 20 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-50335
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:13-cr-02519-BEN-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CESAR MOROYOQUI-GUTIERREZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted December 8, 2014
Pasadena, California
Before: SILVERMAN and BEA, Circuit Judges, and BELL, District Judge.**
Defendant Cesar Moroyoqui-Gutierrez appeals the district court’s
determination that he is incompetent to stand trial for criminal charges of illegal
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Robert Holmes Bell, District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
reentry into the United States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We
affirm.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. An order finding a
defendant incompetent and referring him for evaluation and treatment is an
immediately appealable collateral order. United States v. Friedman, 366 F.3d 975, 980
(9th Cir. 2004). We review de novo whether the district court applied the correct legal
standard. McDermott v. Ampersand Pub., LLC, 593 F.3d 950, 957 (9th Cir. 2010). We
review a district court’s determination that a criminal defendant is incompetent to
stand trial for clear error. Friedman, 366 F.3d at 980.
The district court correctly applied the preponderance of the evidence legal
standard as required by the Insanity Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d). Defendant
argues the district court applied the incorrect standard because the district court orally
stated an incorrect legal standard on the record during the competency hearing on July
18, 2014. Nevertheless, the district court issued a written order applying the correct
preponderance standard. The rule that a district court’s oral ruling overrides a
subsequent written order applies in the sentencing context, United States v. Bergmann,
836 F.2d 1220, 1222 (9th Cir. 1988), but outside of that context the district court’s
written order is the operative decision. Ellison v. Shell Oil Co., 882 F.2d 349, 352 (9th
Cir. 1989) (“Oral responses from the bench may fail to convey the judge’s ultimate
2
evaluation. Subsequent consideration may cause the district judge to modify his or her
views.”) Although this order was initially drafted by counsel for the government, the
court edited and amended the order to make an express finding that Defendant is
incompetent to stand trial by a preponderance of the evidence. See id. (rejecting the
argument that the prevailing party’s drafting of the order was relevant.)
The district court’s finding is well-supported by the record. The court reviewed
expert reports, listened to testimony from both defense expert Dr. Bruce Yanofsky and
independent expert Dr. Matthew Carroll, and noted the conflicting recommendations
of the two experts. The evidence included Dr. Yanofksy’s diagnosis that Defendant
suffered Delusional Disorder, Grandiose Type, based on his belief that he is a prophet
who illegally entered the United States in his mission to seek out “the doors of David”
and the “Tree of Life and the honey that seeps from it;” and Dr. Carroll’s interview
with Defendant, at which time Defendant stated he hoped he could have the judge
decide his case because “the [j]udge is the best person to receive what [he has] to do”
and if the judge “receives” the spirit, then he would be found innocent. The court
found Dr. Carroll’s report and testimony persuasive, and determined that Defendant
did not appreciate the legal defenses available to him nor the consequences of
conviction. “In performing its fact-finding and credibility functions, a district court
is free to assign greater weight to the findings of experts produced by the Government
3
than to the opposing opinions of the medical witnesses produced by the defendant.”
United States v. Gastelum-Almeida, 298 F.3d 1167, 1172 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation
omitted). Given that the nature of Defendant’s delusions go to the core of his legal
defense, the district court was not clearly erroneous in finding by a preponderance of
the evidence that Defendant was not then competent to stand trial.
For the foregoing reasons, the order of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
4