United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 02-2075
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
ALEXANDER MURIEL-CRUZ,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Héctor M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge]
[Hon. Gustavo A. Gelpi. U.S. Magistrate Judge]
Before
Boudin, Chief Judge,
Selya, Circuit Judge,
and Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge.
Elaine Mittleman, for appellant.
Thomas F. Klumper, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom
H.S. Garcia, United States Attorney, and Sonia I. Torres-Pabón,
Assistant United States Attorney, were on brief for appellee.
June 15, 2005
CYR, Senior Circuit Judge. Alexander Muriel-Cruz
contends that the district court failed to conduct a proper mental
competency hearing prior to accepting his guilty plea to a drug
conspiracy charge. See 18 U.S.C. § 4241(e). We affirm.
I
BACKGROUND
In August 2000, Muriel-Cruz and eight codefendants were
jointly indicted on a single count of conspiring to distribute
cocaine. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846. Thereafter, in February
2001, the district court1 ordered that Muriel-Cruz undergo a
pretrial mental competency evaluation at the Federal Medical Center
(FMC) in Butner, North Carolina. See 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d).2 Five
1
A magistrate judge conducted the district court proceedings
presently at issue on appeal. For convenience, we refer to the
magistrate judge as the “district court,” in light of the district
judge’s subsequent adoption of the recommendations made by the
magistrate judge.
2
Subsection 4241(d) provides in pertinent part:
If, after [a] hearing, the court finds by a
preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is
presently suffering from a mental disease or defect
rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that he
is unable to understand the nature and consequences of
the proceedings against him or to assist properly in his
defense, the court shall commit the defendant to the
custody of the Attorney General. The Attorney General
shall hospitalize the defendant for treatment in a
suitable facility –
(1) for such a reasonable period of time, not to
exceed four months, as is necessary to determine
whether there is a substantial probability that in
the foreseeable future he will attain the capacity
2
months later, the FMC certified in writing that Muriel-Cruz was
competent to stand trial, provided he maintained “strict compliance
with prescribed medications.”
On October 4, 2001, the district court convened a
competency hearing. Id. § 4241(e).3 The court found Muriel-Cruz
to permit the trial to proceed; and
(2) for an additional reasonable period of time
until –
(A) his mental condition is so improved that
trial may proceed, if the court finds that
there is a substantial probability that within
such additional period of time he will attain
the capacity to permit the trial to proceed;
or
(B) the pending charges against him are
disposed of according to law;
whichever is earlier.
18 U.S.C. § 4241(d).
3
Subsection 4241(e) provides, in pertinent part:
When the director of the facility in which a
defendant is hospitalized pursuant to subsection (d)
determines that the defendant has recovered to such an
extent that he is able to understand the nature and
consequences of the proceedings against him and to assist
properly in his defense, he shall promptly file a
certificate to that effect with the clerk of the court
that ordered the commitment. . . . The court shall hold
a hearing, conducted pursuant to the provisions of
section 4247(d), to determine the competency of the
defendant. If, after the hearing, the court finds by a
preponderance of the evidence that the defendant has
recovered to such an extent that he is able to understand
the nature and consequences of the proceedings against
him and to assist properly in his defense, the court
shall order his immediate discharge from the facility in
3
competent, based upon: (i) the FMC certificate of competency; (ii)
defense counsel’s representations that she did not dispute the FMC
certificate’s clinical conclusions; (iii) defense counsel’s
personal observation that Muriel-Cruz had appeared to her to be
mentally astute during their recent consultations; (iv) defense
counsel’s commitment to notify the court in the event that she
perceived any material deterioration in the defendant's mental
competency; and (v) the defendant's statement that he “felt very
well” since his treatment at the FMC.
In February 2002, the district court conducted a change-
of-plea hearing, during which defense counsel (i) reminded the
court of Muriel-Cruz’s recent psychiatric treatment at the FMC for
“drug induced” mental problems, and (ii) opined that Muriel-Cruz
was presently competent to enter a plea. The court conducted a
thorough colloquy with Muriel-Cruz, whereupon Muriel-Cruz entered
which he is hospitalized and shall set the date for
trial.
18 U.S.C. § 4241(e). Subsection 4247(d) provides:
At a hearing ordered pursuant to this chapter the
person whose mental condition is the subject of the
hearing shall be represented by counsel and, if he is
financially unable to obtain adequate representation,
counsel shall be appointed for him pursuant to section
3006A. The person shall be afforded an opportunity to
testify, to present evidence, to subpoena witnesses on
his behalf, and to confront and cross-examine witnesses
who appear at the hearing.
18 U.S.C. § 4247(d).
4
a guilty plea, which the district court determined to be knowing
and voluntary.
During the months following the plea hearing, however,
appellant's mental condition temporarily deteriorated after prison
officials inadvertently reduced the maintenance dosage of his
medications. Thereafter, the scheduled sentencing date had to be
continued on two occasions. At a sentencing hearing on July 15,
2002, however, the district court determined Muriel-Cruz competent,
then sentenced him to a 60-month term of imprisonment.
Muriel-Cruz now appeals from the district court
determinations that he was competent to enter a guilty plea.
II
DISCUSSION
Represented by new counsel, Muriel-Cruz now contends
that, after receiving the FMC certificate of competency, the
district court failed to conduct a hearing which comported with the
requirements of subsections 4241(e) and 4247(d). See supra notes
2 & 3.
A. Standard of Review
As Muriel-Cruz failed to raise this issue below, we
review only for plain error. See United States v. Giron-Reyes, 234
F.3d 78, 80 (1st Cir. 2000) (citing Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b)).
Moreover, we will not reverse unless we perceive, at a minimum, an
“‘error’ that is ‘plain’ and that ‘affect[s] substantial rights.’”
5
United States v. Antonakopoulos, 399 F.3d 68, 77 (1st Cir. 2005)
(citation omitted). Even then, we retain the discretion to affirm
unless persuaded that the error “‘seriously affect[ed] the
fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’”
Id. (citation omitted).
B. Motion to Supplement Record on Appeal
First, we must consider whether Muriel-Cruz should be
permitted to supplement the record on appeal with evidence (e.g.,
recent psychiatric evaluations suggesting incompetence) that his
mental condition seriously deteriorated between the February 2002
plea hearing and the July 2002 sentencing hearing. See Fed. R.
App. 10(e).4 He contends that the evidence at issue would
demonstrate that he never regained competence to stand trial
following treatment at the FMC, and that the district court failed
to conduct a sufficiently searching inquiry during the October 4
hearing as to whether he was presently competent.
Absent extraordinary circumstances, not present here, we
consult only the record extant at the time the district court
4
Rule 10(e) provides:
If anything material to either party is omitted from
or misstated in the record by error or by accident, the
omission or misstatement may be corrected and a
supplemental record may be certified and forwarded: (A)
on stipulation of the parties; (B) by the district court
before or after the record has been forwarded; or (C) by
the court of appeals.
Fed. R. App. P. 10(e).
6
rendered its decision. See United States v. Rivera-Rosario, 300
F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 2002) (noting that “‘[a] 10(e) motion is
designed to only supplement the record on appeal so that it
accurately reflects what occurred before the district court [and]
. . . is not a procedure for putting additional evidence, no matter
how relevant, before the court of appeals that was not before the
district court’”).
Further, Muriel-Cruz’s mental condition since his
February 2002 plea hearing does not undercut the FMC certification
that he had regained competence, but at the very most suggests that
he may have experienced a subsequent relapse due to an inadvertent
and temporary change in his maintenance medications. The narrow
issue before us, on the other hand, is whether Muriel-Cruz was
competent at the time he entered the guilty plea. With respect to
that question, of course, the proffered supplemental record is
simply immaterial. Accordingly, we deny the motion to supplement
the record pursuant to FRAP 10(e).
C. The Adequacy of the October 4, 2001 Hearing under Section
4241(e)
Muriel-Cruz contends that the district court never
conducted a valid § 4241(e) competency hearing, in that the October
4, 2001 hearing was inadequate because (i) the court relied upon
the personal opinions of the prosecutor and defense counsel –
neither of whom is a qualified psychiatric professional – as
evidence of Muriel-Cruz’s competency; (ii) the court never rendered
7
an explicit finding that Muriel-Cruz was competent; and (iii) the
district court and defense counsel stated that Muriel-Cruz had
“waived” a § 4241(e) hearing.
Not only can we ascertain no plain error, we are unable
to discern what additional actions reasonably could have been
expected of the district court under § 4241(e). Upon its receipt
of the FMC certificate, the district court duly notified the
parties that it would convene a competency hearing on October 4,
see Giron-Reyes, 234 F.3d at 80 (holding that § 4241(e) mandates
that district court hold a hearing after receipt of a § 4241(e)
certificate), thereby affording them an adequate opportunity to
review the certificate, to determine whether they intended to
contest its findings, and whether to invoke Muriel-Cruz’s statutory
due-process rights “to testify, to present evidence, to subpoena
witnesses on his behalf, and to confront and cross-examine
witnesses who appear at the hearing,” 18 U.S.C. § 4247(d).
At the hearing, the district court did not rely
exclusively upon counsels’ opinion as to appellant’s competency.
The parties were presented with uncontroverted documentary evidence
of Muriel-Cruz’s current competency in the form of the FMC
certificate, which contained the clinical opinion of the FMC’s
psychiatric personnel. Subsection 4241(e) certificates
unquestionably constitute competent evidence of a defendant’s
mental condition. See, e.g., United States v. Barnes, 30 F.3d 575,
8
576 (5th Cir. 1994) (“The district court held a competency hearing
. . . and found the defendant competent based on the [§ 4241(e)]
forensic report.”); see also United States v. General, 278 F.3d
389, 398 (4th Cir. 2002) (noting that, in making a competency
determination, “the [FMC] report is entitled to significant weight
because it is the most recent and comprehensive evaluation [of
defendant’s mental condition]”). Neither the prosecutor nor
defense counsel objected to the medical conclusions reported in the
FMC certificate. Notwithstanding defense counsel’s opinions,
therefore, the district court had independent evidence of Muriel-
Cruz’s competency: the FMC certificate.
Nor is there any basis for the contention that the
district court could not also consider other indicia of Muriel-
Cruz's competency. In arriving at a competency ruling, the
district court may rely upon various kinds of evidence, including
written medical opinions and observations by the court, counsel,
and defendant himself regarding the defendant's demeanor and
fitness to stand trial. See, e.g., United States v. Boigegrain,
155 F.3d 1181, 1189-90 (10th Cir. 1998); United States v. Nichols,
56 F.3d 403, 411 (2d Cir. 1995); United States v. Collins, 949 F.2d
921, 926 (7th Cir. 1991); United States v. Hoyt, 200 F. Supp. 2d
790, 793 (N.D. Ohio 2002). Given that defense counsel enjoys a
unique vantage for observing whether her client is competent, see
Collins, 949 F.2d at 926 (noting that defense counsel and defendant
9
are often the two parties “most familiar” with the facts pertinent
to this issue), it would be untoward indeed to disqualify her from
stating her opinion, particularly since competency means that “a
defendant must be able to understand the proceedings against him
and have sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with
a reasonable degree of rational understanding.” Giron-Reyes, 234
F.3d at 80 (emphasis added). Here, defense counsel assured the
court that Muriel-Cruz had demonstrated an ability to aid in and to
comprehend his defense. The district court reasonably accepted
this as corroboration of the conclusions reached in the FMC
certificate, and requested defense counsel to notify the court in
the event she were to perceive any material deterioration in the
appellant’s mental competency. Finally, the district court heard
Muriel-Cruz’s own admission that he “felt very well” after being
treated at the FMC, and the record discloses no other behavior by
Muriel-Cruz during the hearing which could have cast any serious
doubt as to his competency.
Thus, the district court accorded the parties notice of
the competency hearing, and an opportunity to adduce any evidence
which might contradict the finding of competency contained in the
FMC certificate. As the FMC certificate provided independent
evidence of competency, Muriel-Cruz’s argument – that the court
improperly relied solely upon defense counsel’s non-expert opinions
as to his mental competency – plainly fails.
10
It is noteworthy that Muriel-Cruz has not claimed that
the court had an independent duty under subsection 4241(e) to
summon and question its own expert medical witnesses to verify the
conclusions reached in the FMC certificate. No such authority
exists, either in the statute or in the case law. Subsections
4241(e) and 4247(d) plainly contemplate that the issue of
defendant’s competency vel non is to be resolved through the normal
workings of the adversarial process, and there is no reason to
suppose that defense counsel would act contrary to the interests of
an incompetent client by failing to contest the conclusions of a
subsection 4241(e) certificate. Cf. Giron-Reyes, 234 F.3d at 80-81
(“[T]here is no reasonable cause to hold an initial [§ 4241(d)]
competency hearing where ‘all the information from the [examining]
psychiatrist, the defense counsel and the judge [from a plea
colloquy] [is] in agreement.’”) (citation omitted); cf. also United
States v. Denkins, 367 F.3d 537, 546 (6th Cir. 2004) (“We know of
no authority, and Defendant has not cited any, for the proposition
that [§ 4241(d)] mandates a hearing even when there is no prospect
of meeting the statutory standard of incompetency. Defendant and
his counsel evidently concluded that this standard could not be
satisfied, and the district court was not obligated to press
forward despite Defendant's abandonment of the issue.”). Although
subsection 4241(e) – unlike subsection 4241(d) – mandates a
hearing, see Giron-Reyes, 234 F.3d at 80, both sections leave the
11
decision whether to contest competency primarily to the government
and to defense counsel.
Second, Muriel-Cruz urges that the October 4 hearing was
not valid under subsection 4241(e) because the court made no final
finding of fact that he was competent. Quite the contrary, the
magistrate judge concluded the hearing by unequivocally
recommending to the district judge a finding of fact that Muriel-
Cruz was competent to stand trial. At oral argument on appeal,
appellant’s counsel contended that the district court failed to
enter findings that Muriel-Cruz presently understood the
proceedings against him and had sufficient capacity to consult with
counsel. Counsel cited neither case authority nor sound reason for
requiring a court to parse the definition of “competency,” and
arrive at specific findings as to each component.
Finally, we reject the contention that the October 4
hearing could not have been a subsection 4241(e) hearing given that
the magistrate and defense counsel stated that Muriel-Cruz had
“waived” the hearing. Instead, viewed in context the statements
advert not to the fact that no compliant hearing had been
conducted, but that the defense had waived its due-process right
“to testify, to present evidence, to subpoena witnesses on his
behalf, and to confront and cross-examine witnesses who appear at
the hearing.” 18 U.S.C. § 4247(d). Nothing in the record on
appeal remotely indicates that the district court imposed any
12
impediment to the defense decision as to whether or how to contest
Muriel-Cruz’s competency at the October 4 hearing. The term
“waiver” simply described the relevant reality: defense counsel
chose not to exercise these § 4247(d) rights. In no sense does
this alter the fact that the district court did conduct a
subsection 4241(e) hearing.
As the district court assiduously adhered to both the
letter and the spirit of subsection 4241(e), we perceive no error
whatever in the district court proceedings, let alone plain error.
Affirmed.
13