United States v. Teresa Ann Crawford ( 2008 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
NOV 18, 2008
No. 08-10293 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 07-00028-CR-3-MCR
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TERESA ANN CRAWFORD,
a.k.a. Heidi P. Ward,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
_________________________
(November 18, 2008)
Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Teresa Ann Crawford, who has been indicted for multiple offenses
including impersonation of an officer of the United States, an Air Force colonel,
was found by the district court, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d), to be incompetent
to stand trial and committed to the custody of the Attorney General. Crawford
now appeals the commitment order, contending that the court placed undue weight
on the expert opinion of Dr. Robert Gregg, whose theories regarding
incompetency are allegedly inconsistent. She also contends that her behavior
while testifying at her competency hearing proved that she was mentally
competent.
We review a district court’s determination that a defendant is incompetent
to stand trial for clear error. United States v. Izquierdo, 448 F.3d 1269, 1276 (11th
Cir. 2006). A factual finding is clearly erroneous only when the reviewing court is
left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. United
States v. Roy, 869 F.2d 1427, 1429 (11th Cir. 1989).
The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the government
from trying a defendant who is incompetent. United States v. Rahim, 431 F.3d
753, 759 (11th Cir. 2005). “For a defendant to be competent to stand trial, he must
have ‘sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree
of rational understanding . . . [and] ha[ve] a rational as well as factual
2
understanding of the proceedings against him.” Id. (citation omitted). “Whether
the defendant is competent is an ongoing inquiry” as he must be competent at all
stages of trial, including sentencing. Id. A district court shall commit a defendant
to the custody of the Attorney General 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.” 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d). The government
bears the burden of proving a defendant competent. See United States v. Makris,
535 F.2d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 1976).
Here, the evidence before the district court supported a finding that
Crawford did not have a sufficient ability to consult with her lawyer “with a
reasonable degree of rational understanding . . . [and] ha[ve] a rational as well as
factual understanding of the proceedings against [her].” See Rahim, 431 F.3d at
759. Therefore, the district court’s incompetency finding was not clearly
erroneous.
AFFIRMED.
3