United States v. Nolan Lewis ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       NOV 13 2018
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 17-10109
    17-10331
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    D.C. No.
    v.                                             3:15-cr-08178-SRB-2
    NOLAN LEWIS,
    MEMORANDUM*
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeals from the United States District Court
    for the District of Arizona
    Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted October 16, 2018**
    San Francisco, California
    Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, GRABER, Circuit Judge, and LASNIK,***
    District Judge.
    Defendant-Appellant Nolan Lewis pleaded guilty to second degree murder,
    and he waived his right to appeal. At a restitution hearing, defense counsel raised
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    ***
    The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik, United States District Judge for the
    Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.
    the issue of Lewis’s competency for the first time and filed a motion for
    determination of competency, which the district court denied. Lewis timely appeals
    both the final judgment and the denial of that motion.
    We review de novo an appellant’s waiver of his right to appeal. United
    States v. Bibler, 
    495 F.3d 621
    , 623 (9th Cir. 2007). We give effect to a waiver if it
    is made “knowingly and voluntarily.” United States v. Tsosie, 
    639 F.3d 1213
    , 1217
    (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). We agree with Lewis that an
    incompetent defendant cannot knowingly waive his right to appeal. Godinez v.
    Moran, 
    509 U.S. 389
    , 401 & n.12 (1993). Accordingly, we have jurisdiction to
    determine whether the district court erred by declining to order a competency
    hearing.
    1. The district court did not err in declining to order a sua sponte
    competency hearing. Relevant factors include the defendant’s medical history, his
    behavior in and out of court, and defense counsel’s statements about the
    defendant’s competence. United States v. Garza, 
    751 F.3d 1130
    , 1134 (9th Cir.
    2014). Lewis confirmed in his colloquy with the magistrate judge that he had read
    the plea agreement, understood its provisions, and had voluntarily agreed to it.
    There was no indication that he was incompetent or that he lacked “the capacity for
    reasoned choice among the alternatives.” United States v. Myers, 
    993 F.2d 713
    ,
    714 (9th Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks omitted).
    2                                    17-10109
    Prior to sentencing, Lewis obtained a neuropsychological evaluation from
    Dr. Marc S. Walter. Dr. Walter’s report did not raise any concerns about his
    competency. In his “brief competency interview” with Lewis, Dr. Walter “did not
    find any obvious difficulties[,] except that [Lewis] state[d] that he [did] not really
    remember much about the day when the offenses allegedly occurred.” Dr. Walter’s
    evaluation identifies some cognitive issues and a learning disorder, but does not
    find Lewis incompetent. In light of the entire record, those findings are insufficient
    to warrant further competency proceedings. See United States v. Neal, 
    776 F.3d 645
    , 655-56 (9th Cir. 2015); 
    Garza, 751 F.3d at 1135-36
    . Lewis participated
    appropriately in his proceedings, even giving a thoughtful allocution. His defense
    counsel at the time raised no concerns about his competence. The district court
    committed no error in failing to hold a hearing at that time.
    2. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion, filed
    at a restitution hearing, for determination of competency. United States v. George,
    
    85 F.3d 1433
    , 1437 (9th Cir. 1996). The motion raised concerns by Lewis’s new
    defense counsel, after he interacted with Lewis over an aggregate of two and a half
    hours. There was no new medical evidence, nor any inappropriate conduct from
    Lewis.
    AFFIRMED.
    3                                    17-10109