Rain Dickey-O'brien v. James Yates , 588 F. App'x 705 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            DEC 22 2014
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    RAIN DICKEY-O’BRIEN,                             No. 13-16667
    Petitioner - Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:07-cv-01241-WBS-
    CKD
    v.
    JAMES A. YATES, Warden and                       MEMORANDUM*
    ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE
    OF CALIFORNIA,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of California
    William B. Shubb, Senior District Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted December 10, 2014
    San Francisco, California
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    Rain Dickey-O’Brien appeals from the district court’s denial of his petition
    for habeas corpus. The facts are known to the parties and will not be repeated here.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    1
    He first contends that the state trial court’s decision to use CALJIC 4.00 rendered
    his trial fundamentally unfair. Second, he contends that two events that occurred
    during his trial created doubt concerning his competency to stand trial, requiring
    the state trial court to hold a competency hearing sua sponte.
    The claim that CALJIC 4.00 does not conform to the M’Naghten test fails
    because there was no showing that any violation of clearly established federal law
    occurred. See 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
    (d)(1); see also Estelle v. McGuire, 
    502 U.S. 62
    ,
    71-72 (1991) (“[T]he fact that” a jury instruction was “allegedly incorrect under
    state law is not a basis for habeas relief.”).
    As to the competency at trial issue, Dickey-O’Brien identifies two events
    that he argues created doubt. First, the trial court judge noted unspecified
    “difficulties.” Second, on the same day, the prosecutor noted that Dickey-O’Brien
    had sat “nearly motionless and mute” during the trial. At oral argument, his
    counsel acknowledged that the record contains no other references to either event.
    “[T]he failure to observe procedures adequate to protect a defendant’s right
    not to be tried or convicted while incompetent to stand trial deprives him of his due
    process right to a fair trial.” Drope v. Missouri, 
    420 U.S. 162
    , 172 (1975). A court
    must conduct a hearing sua sponte if it has a “bona fide doubt” as to the
    defendant’s competency. Maxwell v. Roe, 
    606 F.3d 561
    , 568 (9th Cir. 2010).
    2
    “Genuine doubt” rather than “synthetic or constructive doubt” is required. de
    Kaplany v. Enomoto, 
    540 F.2d 975
    , 982-83 (9th Cir. 1976).
    Without more, the two events identified by Dickey-O’Brien are insufficient
    to meet the “high bar” for establishing a bona fide doubt. See Clark v. Arnold, 
    769 F. 3d 711
    , 729 (9th Cir. 2014). The California District Court of Appeal did not
    unreasonably apply clearly established federal law when it determined that the
    state trial court was not required to conduct a competency hearing.
    AFFIRMED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-16667

Citation Numbers: 588 F. App'x 705

Judges: O'Scannlain, Smith, Hurwitz

Filed Date: 12/22/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024