United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Joseph Flaunders, Defendant-appellant, 968 F.2d 1221 (9th Cir. 1992)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Due Process requires a competency hearing to determine a defendant's ability to plead guilty "whenever the trial judge entertains ... a good faith doubt as to that defendant's ability to understand the nature and consequences of the plea or to participate intelligently in the proceedings and to make a reasoned choice among the alternatives presented." Chavez v. United States, 656 F.2d 512, 517 (9th Cir. 1981). A district court's competency determination is reviewed for clear error. People of the Territory of Guam v. Taitano, 849 F.2d 431, 432 (9th Cir. 1989).

Because competency determinations "necessarily involve assessments of credibility and demeanor," Evans v. Raines, 800 F.2d 884, 887 (9th Cir. 1986), the court's conclusion is entitled to a presumption of correctness. In Flaunders' first evaluation, two psychologists found that: 1) he was competent to stand trial; and 2) he understood the nature of the proceedings against him. Doctor Carlin performed a second psychiatric evaluation, and concluded that Flaunders was "marginally competent." Because two psychiatric reports found that Flaunders was competent, the district court did not clearly err.

Flaunders has also failed to establish that he was entitled to a competency hearing. See Spikes v. United States, 633 F.2d 144, 145 (9th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 934 (1981) (requirement for competency hearing). The district court did not abuse its discretion. The evidence supported its finding that Flaunders was competent. See Chavez, 656 F.2d at 517. Further, the district court properly questioned Flaunders before determining that his guilty plea was constitutionally valid.

AFFIRMED.