United States v. Sylvester Eugene Bennett ( 2016 )

Case: 15-12634 Date Filed: 02/10/2016 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-12634
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:02-cr-00259-RAL-TGW-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SYLVESTER EUGENE BENNETT,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(February 10, 2016)
Before WILSON, MARTIN and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-12634 Date Filed: 02/10/2016 Page: 2 of 3
Sylvester Bennett appeals the revocation of his supervised release pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). Bennett’s supervised release was revoked because of his
arrest for domestic battery. He argues on appeal that the district court abused its
discretion by not inquiring into his mental health when accepting his guilty plea
and waiver of the revocation proceeding.
We review a district court’s failure to sua sponte order a competency hearing
for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Williams, 468 F.2d 819, 820 (5th Cir.
1972) (per curiam). 1 If, at any time after the defendant begins supervised release
but before he completes his sentence, “there is reasonable cause to believe that [he]
may presently be suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him . . .
unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him,”
then the district court must sua sponte conduct a competency hearing. 18 U.S.C.
§ 4241(a). The information the district court has must be “sufficient to raise a
bona fide doubt regarding the defendant’s competence.” Tiller v. Esposito, 911
F.2d 575, 576 (11th Cir. 1990).
The test for determining competence to plead guilty is “whether the
defendant has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable
degree of rational understanding and whether the defendant has a rational as well
as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.” Id. (quotation and
1
Decisions of the Fifth Circuit rendered prior to October 1, 1981, are binding on this
Court. See Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc).
2
Case: 15-12634 Date Filed: 02/10/2016 Page: 3 of 3
alterations omitted). To determine whether the district court violated the
defendant’s procedural due process rights by failing to hold a competency hearing,
we consider evidence of: (1) “the defendant’s irrational behavior”; (2) “the
defendant’s demeanor” during the proceeding; and (3) “any prior medical opinion
regarding the defendant’s competence.” Id.Bennett argues that the district court should have held a competency hearing
because the court had evidence that family members believed he had a mental
illness and that his probation officer had requested that he be put in a mental health
program. Despite this information, there was no evidence that Bennett behaved
irrationally around the time of the revocation hearing and his demeanor was
unexceptional. The district court repeatedly asked Bennett if he understood the
charges against him and Bennett confirmed that he did. Beyond that, there was no
earlier medical opinion regarding his mental competency.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to sua sponte conduct
a competency hearing because the information known to it did not raise a bona fide
doubt regarding Bennett’s competence. Accordingly, upon careful review, we
affirm the revocation of Bennett’s supervised release.
AFFIRMED.
3