United States v. Victor Garcia-Vargas , 667 F. App'x 491 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 15-41320      Document: 00513599434        Page: 1     Date Filed: 07/19/2016
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 15-41320
    No. 15-41322
    United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    Summary Calendar                              FILED
    July 19, 2016
    Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff–Appellee,
    versus
    VICTOR MANUEL GARCIA-VARGAS,
    Defendant–Appellant.
    Appeals from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. 5:14-CR-220-1
    USDC No. 5:09-CR-686-1
    Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM: *
    On the ground that he was incompetent to stand trial, Victor Garcia-
    Vargas challenges his conviction of attempted illegal reentry and the
    * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in
    5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
    Case: 15-41320       Document: 00513599434   Page: 2   Date Filed: 07/19/2016
    No. 15-41320
    No. 15-41322
    revocation of his supervised release. He contends that the district court erred
    in crediting the opinion of the government’s expert on whether he “suffered
    from delusional disorder or merely held a strong belief” that his lawful-
    permanent-resident status was erroneously revoked because of a wrongful
    state drug conviction.
    Whether Garcia-Vargas was suffering from delusional disorder is irrele-
    vant, however, if he was both able to understand the nature and consequences
    of the proceedings and had sufficient present ability to assist counsel in his
    defense with a reasonable degree of rational understanding. See Moody v.
    Johnson, 
    139 F.3d 477
    , 481 (5th Cir. 1998); 
    18 U.S.C. § 4241
    ; see also Mays v.
    Stephens, 
    757 F.3d 211
    , 216 (5th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 
    135 S. Ct. 951
     (2015)
    (“A defendant can be both mentally ill and competent to stand trial.”). The
    parties agreed that Garcia-Vargas was able to understand the nature and con-
    sequences of the proceedings, but they disputed whether he had sufficient pres-
    ent ability to assist counsel. As explained below, the finding of such ability
    was not clearly arbitrary or unwarranted. See United States v. Joseph, 
    333 F.3d 587
    , 589 (5th Cir. 2013). Accordingly, we do not reach Garcia-Vargas’s
    arguments concerning his alleged delusional disorder.
    To the extent Garcia-Vargas challenges the opinions of the government’s
    expert generally based on the number of interviews and tests conducted, we
    find no authority for his claim that the doctor’s two personal interviews of the
    defendant and close supervision of two or three other interviews by a psychol-
    ogy intern, along with the administration of a test evaluating the defendant’s
    intellectual functioning, were insufficient to reach an opinion on competency.
    Indeed, Garcia-Vargas was interviewed by his own expert only once, for an
    hour.
    2
    Case: 15-41320    Document: 00513599434     Page: 3   Date Filed: 07/19/2016
    No. 15-41320
    No. 15-41322
    We are also unconvinced by Garcia-Vargas’s reliance on the record from
    his 2009 illegal-reentry case. According to him, the district court and the gov-
    ernment’s expert failed to give adequate weight to evidence from the earlier
    case purportedly showing that he lacked the ability to assist counsel. But the
    district court found in the 2009 case that, although Garcia-Vargas was “some-
    what confused” and required “a little bit longer to explain certain things,” a
    competency hearing was unnecessary. The court observed that Garcia-Vargas
    presented not “a competency issue but an obstinacy one,” and his attorney
    agreed.
    Garcia-Vargas did not challenge the ruling on appeal. Likewise, to the
    extent the record shows that he insisted on disputing his prior conviction
    against the advice of counsel, his refusal to cooperate with counsel did not rise
    to the level of incompetence. See United States v. Simpson, 
    645 F.3d 300
    , 306
    (5th Cir. 2011). Finally, to the extent that he relies on events that occurred
    after the competency determination, he did not move for a new competency
    hearing in light of those events and does not claim that the court erred by
    failing to conduct a new hearing sua sponte.
    AFFIRMED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-41320, 15-41322 Summary Calendar

Citation Numbers: 667 F. App'x 491

Judges: Jolly, Smith, Graves

Filed Date: 7/19/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024